Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

UNITY CONFERENCE, ALLAHABAD.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to state the result of the recent Unity Conference at Allahabad between Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): An agreement was reached among some 15 members of this Conference in favour of the separation of Sind and upon certain points connected with representation in the Legislatures and other matters. But the agreement has not yet been ratified by the communities concerned and has been condemned by a Conference of leading Muslims at Delhi.

UNEMPLOYMENT.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have made any investigation or prepared any estimate of the numbers of unemployed in India and of persons suffering from insufficient food, clothing, and shelter?

Mr. BUTLER: So far as I am aware no such estimate has been made.

Mr. GRENFELL: Has the hon. Gentleman seen a report issued by an eminent Indian publicist declaring that 40,000,000 people in India are suffering great privation and living in a state of chronic poverty?

Mr. BUTLER: I am always glad to investigate any such report.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that millions of people in India have always been starving?

EUROPEAN EDUCATION.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India from what representative organisations in India has he received requests that European education should be a central subject?

Mr. BUTLER: I have received representations in this sense on behalf of the Anglo-Indian and Domiciled European Association and the Association of Heads of European Schools in India.

Sir W. SMILES: Is my hon. Friend aware that many Anglo-Indian children from Calcutta are now educated in the Province of Assam?

Mr. BUTLER: The question asked by my hon. Friend was as to what representative organisations had made representations. If he will put down another question, I shall be very glad to answer it.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: Can my hon. Friend say that these representations will receive favourable consideration?

Mr. BUTLER: They will receive the most earnest consideration.

SITUATION.

Mr. D. GRENFELL (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS): 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make any statement as to the present state of affairs in India?

Mr. BUTLER: The situation remains unchanged.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

PORTUGUESE PORTS (FLAG DISCRIMINATION).

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement as to flag discrimination by the Portuguese Government against British shipping?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom very much regret that the Portuguese Government have not yet replied to a note on this subject which His Majesty's Ambassador addressed to
them last August; my right hon. Friend has accordingly instructed His Majesty's Ambassador to press for an early reply.

Sir A. POWNALL: Will not the Government consider cancelling our trade treaty with Portugal in view of the fact that this question has been going on for two years?

Mr. EDEN: The present position is admittedly unsatisfactory, but my hon. Friend may be certain that every consideration bearing on this question will be taken fully into account.

Mr. HANNON: Does not Portugal owe its very existence to the British people and the British nation, and is it not time that some retaliatory measures were taken by this country?

SWEDISH DELEGATION.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 36.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether the Government hospitality fund is providing hospitality for the Swedish Delegation to discuss trade affairs with the British Government; and if the Delegation came at our invitation?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): No expense will fall on His Majesty's Government other than that involved by social courtesy, such as an official luncheon to the delegates. The Swedish Government, having suggested the desirability of tariff negotiations, were invited to send delegates to London for this purpose.

ARGENTINA.

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the arrangements arrived at by the D'Abernon mission to Argentina have been carried out; if not, whether it is intended to carry them out either in part or in whole; and whether, in discussing wheat and meat problems with the Argentine commercial delegation, he will stipulate that the terms of the D'Abernon agreement shall become part of any future commercial arrangement with the Argentine Government?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The D'Abernon Agreement was negotiated three years ago and did not come into operation as it failed to receive the
approval of the Argentine Legislature. As regards the last part of the question, I doubt whether it would be possible to revive the agreement as such, but it will be borne in mind in connection with our efforts to increase British trade with Argentina.

IMPORT DUTIES (NEWSPRINT).

Mr. ARTHUR REED: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any opposition to the application of the newsprint manufacturers for the transfer of newsprint from the free list was filed before the prescribed date, namely, 28th October; and, if not, if he can state the cause of the delay in dealing with the application?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I understand that the answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative, and the second part does not therefore arise.

CHEMICAL GLASSWARE.

Sir C. CAYZER (for Sir JOHN SANDEMAN ALLEN): 46.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken with regard to the representations made to him on behalf of the British chemical glassware industry in connection with proposals to establish factories in this country, with the assistance of alien labour, to manufacture chemical glassware, including tubing; and if he is aware of the capacity of the British industry to manufacture these products for the whole of the home market and for the Dominions?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I have received representations to this effect and communicated them to the Minister of Labour, with whom rests the responsibility for issuing permits for the employment of alien labour. The Minister has been informed that the Board of Trade see no reason to question the accuracy of the view expressed on behalf of the British chemical glass industry.

CEYLON.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY (for Mr. CHORLTON): 50.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can report any further progress towards getting increased preference for the trade of this country with Ceylon?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I understand that the Board of Ministers in Ceylon have completed a preliminary scrutiny of the schedule of proposed preferential duties. They have referred it, in accordance with the usual practice, to the Executive Committee for Labour, Industry and Commerce for very early examination and report, with a view to the introduction into the State Council at the earliest possible date of a resolution under the Customs Ordinance imposing a new scale of duties embodying Imperial Preference on a wide range of commodities.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, owing to the abnormal fall in the value of the yen, tremendous importations of Japanese goods are taking place into Ceylon and the whole effect of Imperial Preference is being undermined; and, as this is a matter of great urgency, will be consider taking immediate steps to represent the situation to the Government of Ceylon?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I represented the situation to the Government of Ceylon the day after this House granted Imperial Preference.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Can my right hon. Friend take any more efficacious measures to deal with the situation, which is one of grave urgency?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot. I have made very strong representations as to what is in the interests of Ceylon as well as of this country, but my hon. Friend will be aware that in this matter the Parliament of Ceylon is entitled to act.

AFRICAN COLONIES.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY (for Mr. CHORLTON): 51.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can report any further progress in connection with preference or increase of preference for the trade of this country in the mid-continental Colonies in Africa?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: All the Dependencies in Africa which are free to do so now grant preferences to this country.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the representations of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce in connection with this matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: With which matter?

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: The matter put forward in the question is as to increased preferences in the Colonies in Africa?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not sure that I follow. I have been myself in fairly close touch with the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. Since I have been at the Colonial Office preference has been introduced in all those Colonies in which it has been granted.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH RELATIONS.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the Franco-Soviet Pact of Non-Aggression and the Conciliation Convention, signed in Paris on 29th November; and whether negotiations are proceeding or contemplated between Britain and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics for a similar convention and pact?

Mr. EDEN: The text of the Franco-Soviet Pact of Non-Aggression has been published in the Press. I have no statement to make in the matter. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. GRENFELL: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a great safeguard to the peace of the world if this country followed the example of France?

Mr. EDEN: The circumstances in our case do not seem to call for any such action.

Mr. GRENFELL: Are not the British Government equally interested in maintaining the peace of the world?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir.

BAKU CONSOLIDATED OILFIELDS, LIMITED.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government with regard to the confiscation without compensation by the Russian Soviet Government of the plant, properties, tanks, and oil belonging to the
British company known as Baku Consolidated Oilfields, Limited, of the estimated value of over £4,000,000?

Mr. EDEN: The circumstances in which the Anglo-Soviet debts and claims negotiations were terminated on the 27th January last have already been explained to the House; those negotiations applied to this claim among others. No further action has been taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (CONCESSION).

Sir A. POWNALL: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information with regard to the announcement by the Persian Government of its intention to cancel its agreement with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company?

Sir W. DAVISON: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action is being taken by the Government with regard to the cancellation by the Persian Government of the concession granted by them to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the announcement by the Persian Government that they intend to cancel the D'Arcy concession, under which the Anglo-Persian Oil Company operates its oilfields in Persia; and what steps he proposes to take to protest against such action, in view of the fact that the concession was definitely granted for a period of 60 years from 1901?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he proposes to take to protect our property invested in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company?

Mr. EDEN: The action of the Persian Government in cancelling the Anglo-Persian Oil Company's concession on the 27th November, was immediately reported to His Majesty's Government, who are fully aware of all the circumstances, including the fact that the concession was definitely granted for a period of sixty years from 1901, and contains no provision for cancellation. On the 2nd December His Majesty's Minister at Teheran
under instructions made the strongest representations to the Persian Government emphasising the very serious view held by His Majesty's Government, and adding that while they still hoped that the matter might be amicably settled His Majesty's Government would not hesitate in case of need to take all legitimate measures to protect their just and indisputable interests. The Persian Government were at the same time informed that His Majesty's Government will not tolerate any damage to the company's interests or interference with their premises or business activities in Persia.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are any steps being taken to protect the pipe lines, and may I ask what our relations are with the Sheik of Mohammerah?

Mr. EDEN: I should like notice of the second part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's supplementary question. As to the general position, I have outlined the representations which were made, and I should like the matter left in that position at the present.

Captain MACDONALD: Were representations made by the Persian Government to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company for negotiations before the cancellation?

Mr. EDEN: Negotiations, I believe, have been in progress in the past.

Mr. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to print a White Paper showing the conditions of the franchise, the amount of royalties that have been paid, the interest the Government have in the undertaking, and the amount of interest the Government have had?

Mr. EDEN: I will consider what information I can give to the House which will be of assistance.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In view of the serious statement which the hon. Gentleman has made, will he inform the House of the main reasons given by the Persian Government for the cancellation? There must be strong reasons for taking such action.

Mr. EDEN: I do not think that I can go into that matter at this stage. If the hon. Gentleman has not read the Persian Government's statement, perhaps he will put down a question, and I will give the reasons.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

SHANGHAI (DISTRICT COURT).

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the future of the District Court of Shanghai?

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has ascertained the wishes of the Municipal Council of Shanghai regarding changes in the composition and status of the Shanghai District Court when the present agreement expires on the 31st March?

Mr. PETHERICK: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the many complaints of interference with the judges of the present District Court of Shanghai; and whether the British representative has put forward proposals for reform?

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that, in anticipation of the present agreement expiring next March, the Chinese are framing a list of desiderata for the new Shanghai District Court which are designed to eliminate the checks on the court's action which the Shanghai Municipal Council still possess; and whether this Government are considering taking any action in the matter?

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the complaints made of obstruction and delay in securing judgments in the present district court of Shanghai and with regard to the competence and experience of the judges; and what action the Government is taking to secure reforms?

Mr. EDEN: My right hon. Friend is aware of the various complaints that have been made regarding the working of the court, and fully recognises the importance of the matter. I understand that the Chinese Government have the terms of the existing agreement under consideration. My hon. Friend may rest assured that His Majesty's Government will do everything possible to secure the fullest protection for the British interests involved, whether these depend on the
terms of the court agreement or on other factors affecting the administration of justice.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this agreement expires in a very short time, and does he not think that negotiations should be put in hand at once so that conclusions can be come to in ample time?

Mr. EDEN: I quite agree that the negotiations have to be concluded by April next, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not in any way wasting time.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the Government consult the Municipal Council of Shanghai and ascertain their views?

Mr. EDEN: That is covered in the answer which I gave, in which I said that we will do everything possible. That certainly includes consultation with the Municipal Council of Shanghai.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: Will the Government see that we take a lead of all the other nations in this matter?

BRITISH SUBJECTS, HARBIN.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has as to the conditions in Harbin; and what steps are being taken to safeguard the lives and property of British residents in the disturbed conditions prevailing there?

Mr. EDEN: The information which has been received shows that a state of great insecurity exists in Harbin owing to the activities of bandits. It is unsafe for foreign residents to go outside the city and attempts at kidnapping have been made even in Harbin itself. When approached on the subject, His Majesty's Consul-General has advised the evacuation of women and children, and several have left. His Majesty's Consul-General is also assisting British firms to obtain armed guards for the protection of life and property. The Consular body at Harbin have represented to the local authorities the urgent necessity for the strengthening and improving of the police force, and His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has asked the Japanese Government to use their influence with the Manchurian authorities for the same purpose. This they have promised to do.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND (ANTI-SEMITIC OUTBREAKS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the anti-Semitic outbreaks in Poland

Mr. EDEN: I have seen in the Press an account of these outbreaks, and I expect to receive in due course a report upon them from His Majesty's Ambassador at Warsaw.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. PARKINSON: 20.
asked the Minister of Pensions what economy has been effected during 12 months to the most convenient date as a result of the policy of declining to furnish surgical boots, but making alterations to boots purchased by pensioners who need special footwear owing to a war disability?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The hon. Member is under some misapprehension. The Ministry do not decline to furnish surgical boots where these are prescribed as necessary. I would refer the hon. Member to the detailed answer given on this subject to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) on the 16th March last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 21.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the growing anxiety of those farmers who cultivate sugar beet as to the prospects of the industry when the Sugar Beet Subsidy Act expires at the end of next year; and what steps he is taking to ensure that farmers will be advised of the future policy in this connection at the earliest possible opportunity?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): I recognise the desirability of determining future policy in regard to the sugar-beet industry as soon as possible. The hon. Baronet will appreciate that important questions are involved, but I can assure him that there will be no avoidable delay.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: When dealing with this matter, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give full consideration to a duty and no excise instead of a subsidy?

Sir G. FOX: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now state when the committee of inquiry into the sugar-beet industry referred to in his Budget speech is to be set up?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir. The matter is under consideration, but my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make a definite statement.

SMALLHOLDINGS.

Captain HEILGERS: 22.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will take steps to initiate a few demonstration smallholdings on the outskirts of large industrial towns which will serve as training centres for unemployed men desiring to become smallholders?

Major ELLIOT: Under the Statutes at present in operation the responsibility for providing smallholdings rests with county councils, but they would not be empowered to carry out such a proposal as that suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. The only provisions which would allow effect to be given to his suggestion are contained in the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act, 1931, and, as he is aware, it has not been found possible in the present financial stringency to provide the necessary funds to enable this Act to be operated. I am therefore not in a position to adopt the suggestion.

WAGES (LEICESTER AND RUTLAND).

Mr. THORNE: 23.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Leicester and Rutland Agricultural Wages Board have proposed to reduce wages from 34s. to 32s. per week and from 32s. 6d. to 30s. 6d., respectively; and if he will state whether he intends to endorse these proposals

Major ELLIOT: I am aware that the Leicester and Rutland Agricultural Wages Committee recently issued a proposal to reduce the minimum rates on the lines stated and that on meeting after the prescribed period for the lodging of objections to the proposal they decided that the reductions shall be put into effect. The Committee's decision does not come
before me for endorsement, as under the terms of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act the determination of the minimum rates is entirely within the powers of the Committee.

Mr. THORNE: Do I understand from that reply that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has no control at all in the matter, and no right to veto such a proposal?

Major ELLIOT: No, Sir, the Act passed by the Government which was supported by the hon. Gentleman did not give me that power.

Mr. RYS DAVIES: Will the Minister say whether it is in his power to give a gentle hint to these people that the wages are low enough already?

Major ELLIOT: If we began giving hints on this subject, it might lead both sides rather further than they wish to go.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Will the Minister inform the Agricultural Wages Board that he has very great hopes that on account of tariffs conditions will improve so much that it will not be necessary to reduce wages?

PIG INDUSTRY (MARKETING).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 24.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made up to the present with the preparation of marketing schemes in accordance with the recommendations of the Pig Industry Reorganisation Committee?

Major ELLIOT: I understand that the respective organisations representing farmers and curers have separately and conjointly considered these schemes, and that I may expect shortly to receive their comments. I may add that, so far as can be judged from Press reports, the agricultural community has given a favourable reception to the proposals as a whole.

Captain MACDONALD: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement on this subject? Before the end of the year?

Major ELLIOT: Obviously, that point lies in the hands of the bodies who are forwarding me their appreciations of the situation.

Captain MACDONALD: Has any time limit been placed on them?

Major ELLIOT: I am leaving it to the good sense of the bodies concerned, as it is everyone's knowledge that it is very desirable that we should have this information as soon as possible.

Mr. MAXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the comments made on the agricultural policy of the Government at the Conservative conference in Glasgow recently?

MEAT PRICES.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 25.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, with a view to allaying public anxiety with regard to the effect on retail meat prices of the recent restrictions imposed, he will consider the desirability of publishing weekly figures showing the course of prices for the chief categories of wholesale and retail meat?

Major ELLIOT: Wholesale prices of meat are published weekly by my Department in the Agricultural Market Report. The collection and publication of retail prices is undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and these figures are published monthly in the Ministry of Labour Gazette.

Captain MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that the changes in the wholesale prices do not justify any great increase in retail prices?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE STAFF.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 26.
asked the Postmaster-General what is the number of people whose services will be unnecessary as the result of the general establishment of the dialling system?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): It is anticipated that it will be possible to absorb in other exchanges the staff rendered redundant as the result of the conversion of manual exchanges to automatic working.

TELEPHONE CALL BOXES (RECEIPTS).

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 27.
asked the Postmaster-General what is the decline in the takings from telephone boxes in the streets and in public places since the adoption of the dialling system?

Sir K. WOOD: Since 1927, when the automatic system was introduced in London, the annual takings from public call offices have increased by about £100,000 in London and by about a quarter of a million pounds in the country as a whole.

SUPERVISING OFFICERS, NORTHERN IRELAND.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 30.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that many supervising officers in Northern Ireland are being retained beyond the normal retiring age although there are officers below retiring age capable of performing the duties; that these retentions increase unemployment, impede promotion, the absorption of boy messengers, and the creation of full-time posts for auxiliary postmen; and whether he will reduce the number of retentions?

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member would appear to have been misinformed. There is at the present time only one Supervising Officer in the Post Office in Northern Ireland above 60 years of age.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this officer is due to retire, and, if so, why he is kept on?

Sir K. WOOD: My hon. Friend had better put that question on the paper?

SUB-OFFICES (ROBBERIES).

Sir G. FOX: 31.
asked the Postmaster-General how many cases of attacks upon sub-post offices have been reported to him during the current year; what is the total value of Post Office property that has been lost through such attacks; and in how many cases Post Office officials have been wounded or killed?

Sir K. WOOD: Since the 1st January last there have been 22 cases of attack upon sub-post offices. The loss is approximately £168. No Post Office official was killed. In eight cases sub-postmasters or their assistants received injuries—fortunately in most cases of only a minor character. I am sure the House will appreciate the courage that has been generally displayed by the employés of the Post Office and others concerned.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in how many of these cases the criminals have been apprehended and punished?

Sir K. WOOD: I think there have been a dozen cases—some of them, of course, have occurred only quite recently—and already six people have been arrested.

TELEPHONE CHARGES.

Mr. DORAN: 32.
asked the Postmaster-General what safeguard has the user of an automatic telephone on the dialling system, from being charged for wrong numbers or a call to which there is no reply?

Sir K. WOOD: Wrong numbers are comparatively rare, and there has been appreciable improvement in this respect since the installation of automatic telephone exchanges. Where a wrong connection is made, the calling subscriber should notify the operator in order that credit may be allowed. A call is not recorded by the automatic meter unless the called subscriber's telephone is answered.

POSTMEN'S HEADGEAR.

Sir ALFRED BEIT: 33.
asked the Postmaster-General what is the reason for the change to be made in the type of hat for postmen and what type of hat is to be adopted?

Captain CROOKSHANK: 34.
asked the Postmaster-General for what reasons it has been decided to alter the headgear of postmen; what is the new pattern; and what is the estimated cost of the change?

Sir K. WOOD: The change from the shako to a cap of Brodrick pattern was authorised at the request of the postmen; it is being made as and when issues become due in normal course and the existing stocks of shakos become exhausted; and there is no additional cost.

Sir A. BEIT: Is it not a fact that the new type of hat does not give as great. a protection from the elements as the old type, which is regarded only as one of the most useful relics of the Victorian period?

Sir K. WOOD: There is a good deal of difference of opinion about this matter, and I think the best plan would be to give the new cap a try out and see what the results may be. This change has been made at the request of the wearers of the caps.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that
at the very moment the Army is giving up one type of cap the Post Office is adopting it?

Sir K. WOOD: I have already stated that this change was decided on some time ago, before there was any alteration so far as the Army is concerned, and it was made at the request of the men themselves.

Mr. THORNE: Are these new caps being made by the Army Clothing Department or by private contractors?

Sir K. WOOD: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. HICKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to wear one of these caps in the House of Commons?

Sir K. WOOD: I have already worn one, but I must ask my hon. Friend to look at it and ask himself how he thinks I would appear in it.

STAFF (Ex-SERVICE MEN).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 35.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will consider the advisability of making an alteration in the practice in his Department whereby ex-service men are discharged to make room for non-ex-service men from another town, though the latter may have longer service with the Department and when, as in the recent case in Birmingham, the housing difficulty is acute?

Sir K. WOOD: A preference is given to ex-service men in engaging staff for many situations in the Post Office, but when it is a question of discharging staff owing to shortage of work, it is, I think, generally regarded as reasonable that length of service in the Post Office and degree of skill should be the principal determining factors. This has been the practice since the War and has generally been regarded by the staff concerned as the most equitable arrangement in the difficult circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE BROADCASTING STATION.

Mr. DORAN: 28 and 29.
asked the Postmaster-General (1) if he will state under what clause of the charter dated 1927 the British Broadcasting Corporation are establishing the Empire broadcasting station at Daventry;
(2) whether, in view of the fact that, listeners in this country will derive little benefit from the Empire short-wave station at Daventry owing to technical reasons, he can arrange with the various Dominions and Colonies, for whose benefit this station is being erected, that they shall defray the cost of upkeep between themselves?

Sir K. WOOD: The stations of the British Broadcasting Corporation are constructed and maintained under Clauses 2 and 5 to 7 of their Post Office Licence of the 1st January, 1927, and the drafts of the licence and charter were laid before Parliament in Command Paper No. 2756 of 1926. The British Broadcasting Corporation have decided to bear the cost of the Empire Broadcasting Station until the service has been established; and, as I have already stated, they consider themselves free to reopen the question of contributions from the Dominions and Colonies later. Any other course would have led to considerable delay in proceeding with the construction of the station and in the establishment of a service which, I believe, is generally approved.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (FUEL).

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 37.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what is the artificial fuel which is at present used in the House of Commons and if it is in general use in Government Departments?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The fuel at present used in the open fireplaces in the House of Commons is a low-temperature carbonised fuel, known as Metrocoalite; it is in use in Government Departments in London to the extent of about 25 per cent. of the total requirements for open fireplaces. This is in pursuance of the policy of the Government to assist low-temperature fuel organisations.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the fuel is in general use in the Palace of Westminster, and if any Department has refused, or declined, or expressed a, desire not to use, this fuel —for instance, the House of Lords?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I believe that the users of certain fireplaces in the House of Lords do not wish to have this new fuel.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask why?

Oral Answers to Questions — WATER SUPPLIES.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 38.
asked the Minister of Health the total amount of loans sanctioned by his Department during the last 12 months for water supplies; and how much of that amount is for new work and extensions, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The loans sanctioned during the year ended 30th November, 1932, amounted to £1,782,000, of which £780,000 was for new work and £1,002,000 for extensions.

Mr. THORNE: 39.
asked the Minister of Health what action is being taken by the Metropolitan Water Board to prevent the fouling of water in the London reservoirs by sea gulls?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend is informed that efforts have been and are being made by the Metropolitan Water Board to scare gulls away from their reservoirs, but that because of the large area covered by the reservoirs, this is not wholly practicable. My right hon. Friend is assured that no danger to public health need be apprehended.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS)

Mr. THOMAS COOK: 40.
asked the Minister of Health the amount paid out in relief for unemployed agricultural labourers in Norfolk during the past two years and the cost of administration entailed?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The poor-relief returns made to my Department do not distinguish the amount of poor-relief paid to unemployed agricultural workers. The information desired by my hon. Friend is accordingly not available.

Mr. COOK: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will receive for consideration a scheme from the Norfolk County Public Assistance Committee which will find work for unemployed agricultural labourers, provided that such schemes entail no increased charge to the public purse?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I shall be glad to receive particulars of this scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.

Mr. REMER: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, before coming to a decision on the question of amending the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, by inserting a minimum quality Clause requiring a specified amount to be expended on the production of a film to qualify for quota purposes, except on certain alternative considerations, he will receive a deputation of producers of British films who are opposed to this suggestion?

Dr. BURGIN: I would suggest that in the first place the interests referred to by my hon. Friend should furnish me with a statement of their views, and I shall then be glad to consider whether it is necessary to trouble them to send a deputation.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (GOVERNOR GENERAL).

Mr. CADOGAN: 47.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to an announcement made by Mr. Donal Buckley to the effect that he wishes to be known not as Governor-General of Southern Ireland but as seneschal; and whether, in view of the terms of the agreement with the Irish Free State, he has made representations to the Government of Southern Ireland with a view to ascertaining whether there is any material significance in the altered designation of the Governor-General's office?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I understand that the term "seneschal" in the Irish spelling has been used since the establishment of the Irish Free State as the Irish translation of Governor-General, and, so far as I am aware, no alteration has been made in this position.

Mr. CADOGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a definition of "seneschal" in his own language?

Mr. THOMAS: I should hate to shock the House.

Lieut.-Commander BOWER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the definitions is "a military commander
invested with judicial power"? Does he not think that perhaps the gentleman referred to is rather overstating the importance of his office?

Mr. THOMAS: I have ceased to think on that!

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that 40 Jews were employed on public works at the end of 1931 out of a total of 280 persons thus employed in Jerusalem where the Jews constitute nearly 60 per cent. of the population, and that at the same date 35 Jews out of a total of 480 workpeople were employed in the northern district; and whether he will take steps to see that the undertaking made in the Prime Minister's letters to Dr. Weizmann, of 13th February, 1931, is implemented?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have seen the memorandum by the Jewish Agency which contains the statistics quoted by the hon. Member. It is clear from the memorandum that the figures for Jerusalem refer to public works carried out by the Jerusalem municipality. The annual report on the Administration of Palestine for 1931 shows that in that year the permament staff of the public works branch of the Jerusalem municipality consisted of 194 persons, of whom 83 were Jews, and that the amount of work done during 1931 in terms of men-days was 10,067, of which 2,935, or approximately 32 per cent., were allotted to Jews. I have no official figures regarding the northern district. Consultations between the Government of Palestine and the executive of the Jewish Agency as to the Jewish contribution to public revenue have made progress, and a scheme for determining the Jewish share of employment on public works is now engaging the attention of the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (TAXATION).

Sir A. POWNALL: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give an approximate average figure for the taxation per head in the United States levied by State authorities?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not aware of any figure for a year later than 1929,
when the average taxation per head levied by State authorities was 13.35 dollars.

Oral Answers to Questions — CURRENCY.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the delay in the meeting of the World Economic Conference, and the probability that any settlement of the currency problem in the Empire will promote a solution of international financial difficulties, he will give an invitation to the Dominions to join at once in an Empire conference for the purpose of arriving at a settled basis of exchange between different British possessions, thus facilitating and promoting the flow of Empire produce between all parts of His Majesty's Dominions?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on the 28th November, to a similar proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd), to which I can add nothing.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister did not, in fact, give any reply. All that he said was that no such proposal had ever reached him. We are now putting this proposal before him. May we have a reply to it?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think that my hon. Friend's recollection is at fault. The Prime Minister said that he had no reason to suppose that another conference would be welcomed by any part of the Empire.

Oral Answers to Questions — EBBW VALE IRON AND STEEL COMPANY (INCOME TAX).

Mr. EDWARDS: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Ebbw Vale Iron and Steel Company and its four subsidiary companies owed the Inland Revenue £650,000 in respect of Income Tax on past profits, but that £75,000, together with 259,195 paper shares, has been accepted in full settlement; what is the estimated loss to the Treasury; and what was the reason for not insisting on payment of the full sum?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am aware of the settlement to which the hon. Member
refers—a settlement to which, I would remind him, all the interests concerned, of which the Inland Revenue is only one, have agreed. The alternative—liquidation of the group of companies—would have involved the throwing-out of employment of many thousands of men; and I am confident that by joining in the arrangement now made, the Inland Revenue have obtained a not unfavourable settlement, and one which in present circumstances is best calculated to secure the public interest.

Mr. EDWARDS: May I ask whether the Treasury were consulted before the firm were forgiven this huge sum of £575,000; and, secondly, is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the very district where this company operates, working men owing a pound or two in Income Tax were sent to gaol? Why this difference of treatment?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Inland Revenue authorities were, of course, consulted, and they agreed I have told the hon. Gentleman that they agreed in order to protect the employment of a large number of men.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the Treasury gives the same consideration to small companies as to large companies?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is it not true that more pits have been closed down because the Treasury insisted on being paid in full?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Every case is treated on its merits.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY CHARGES, KENSINGTON.

Sir W. DAVISON: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport when it is estimated that, as a result of the operation of the grid system, a reduction will be made in the present high prices charged for electricity in the Royal borough of Kensington?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): Trading opera
tions under the grid system for southeast England have not yet commenced, and it is difficult to forecast by what date it may be anticipated that consumers of electricity in particular areas will benefit from economies in generation effected by that system.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is this to be a question of a year, or two years, as we were given to believe that the grid system was installed to effect at an early date a substantial diminution in the charges for electricity?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I can only anticipate with hope in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT (ROAD GRANTS, NORTH KENT).

Mr. SMITHERS: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a grant from the Road Fund to enable the local council to improve the roads in the Blackfen area, near Sidcup, Kent, in order that it may be possible to run omnibus services over these roads adequate for the needs of the inhabitants?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am unable to trace any application for a grant to road improvement schemes in the Blackfen area. Should one be submitted, it will be considered in the light of the limited funds available and the claims of schemes elsewhere.

Mr. SMITHERS: Can the hon. Gentleman say that he has received no application for motor omnibus services in this district, and is it not a fact that the omnibus cannot be provided because the roads are so bad?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I can only give the hon. Member the information that I have already had. I have no such information.

Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will take into account the very urgent demand for an omnibus service in this district, and will he give it sympathetic consideration?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I will certainly give it my immediate consideration, and as sympathetic consideration as I can.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council how late he proposes that the House shall sit to-night in the event of the Motion on the Paper being carried; and whether the Patronage Secretary has made any progress in his efforts to restrain the rebels on his own side?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I hope that we may be able to make such progress to-day with the London Passenger Transport Bill that we may see the end of the Committee stage to-morrow night, and it is with that in mind that I have put down the Motion on the Paper.

Mr. LANSBURY: But we should like to know how long we are going to sit to-night.

Mr. BALDWIN: We must see what progress is made.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman assist the Patronage Secretary in restraining the enthusiasm of his followers?

Mr. BALDWIN: We always desire to help the business of the House as far as we can. The enthusiasm on my part is overwhelming.

Mr. LANSBURY: We want to be allowed to get home.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the London Passenger Transport (re-committed) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 21.

Orders of the Day — LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 1st December].

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Incorporation, proceedings and officers of Board.)

Dr. O'DONOVAN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, after the word "remuneration," to insert the words:
not exceeding the sum of fifteen hundred pounds per annum for new appointments.
3.33 p.m.
I think this Amendment is called for by the sudden, great enlargement of the ambit of those who may aspire to be public servants acting under a public authority. We are erecting a new and large sheltered industry, and those engaged in it will be entirely free from the anxieites and hazards to which those who are not in sheltered industries are exposed. It will be difficult to foretell what will be the future prosperity of the Bill unless the House has some information as to the scale of salaries that is likely to prevail in the new hierarchy of controllers, deputy-controllers and assistant deputy-controllers who will be created. The prosperity of the undertaking and the comfort of the travelling public depend upon the good will and the daily happy service of the very humble men who will be collecting pennies in all weathers from those to whom pennies are essential and, if the administrators become a caste apart, with salaries of which we have no conception, those who will be administering the Act will inevitably suffer from the disease of all administrators, and that is the loss of the common touch with those who are doing the daily work of bringing in the pence, on which the whole prosperity of the undertaking depends. I move the Amendment for the sake of information.

3.38 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I do not think there is any precedent for a proposal to restrict in this way the salaries of any
public authority or, as far as I know, of any local authority. It would be a great drawback to the Board to be thus fettered because it might prevent them from getting the best type of men for their technical and professional work. I do not think it is possible for us to accept the Amendment.

3.39 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: We quite understand that the Board, naturally, wishes to have the best type of men it can possibly get. Many of us would not go quite so far as my hon. Friend and limit them to £1,500 a year. I am not at all sure that you could get the best type of man for that salary—very likely you could not—but I think the Committee might be granted a rather fuller explanation as to the type of man who will fill the position of secretary. I wonder whether the Ministry would hold that an ex-civil servant would be the type of man who would best fill the job. It seems to be almost the only occasion, apart from the Motion that the Clause stand part, on which we shall have an opportunity of extracting any advice from the Minister as to how the staff is to be formed. We ought to have more information upon the question of the payment of salaries than we have received at the present time. Can the Minister, in refusing the Amendment, say whether he expects there will be many persons upon this staff who will have more than £1,500 a year? If necessary, information as to the size of the staff could be given later, but we should like to know whether there will be a large number of expensive appointments? I feel sure that the Minister before bringing the Bill to its present stage must have obtained a clear idea as to the number of persons who will be suitable for a staff of this kind. I notice that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is taking a deeper interest in my remarks than the Minister. Perhaps he intends to answer these points. I do not mind who answers them, but the Committee are entitled to some knowledge of the type of persons who are to hold these important positions. It is no use under-paying them. If you do, you will not get the best men and those who are capable of undertaking a job of this kind. Therefore, I think the Committee are entitled to a fuller explanation as to why the Amendment is
being turned down, not by a mere negative, but because of the fact that it might be too limiting to put it into the Bill at the present time.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.43 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Before we lose possession of the Clause we ought to appreciate the some what curious constitutional position which will arise. Under Clause 1 we set up the procedure whereby the board is to be brought into being, but we in no sense defined the rights and powers the board are to possess. Under Clause 2 we make that board into a corporate body of a rather unusual kind. This corporate body will be brought into being by the somewhat strange procedure of Clause 1. Individual members of the corporate body, if they fail to do their duties properly, become liable to the application of those two words "inability" or "misbehaviour" and are capable of dismissal by somebody else, the Minister. Lastly, these people are employed by whom? Not by the people who appoint them and not by the persons who can dismiss them, but by the board. In other words, the members of the board are employés of the board in their individual capacity, and they are servants of themselves in their collective capacity. This is the most novel constitutional form which has yet been invented for carrying on a business. But because a thing is novel is no reason why it should not be adopted. I am in favour of novelty when I am satisfied that novelty is justified. I wish the Committee to realise the curious and strange novelty set up in Clauses 1 and 2.
Some four years ago I had a measure of responsibility for helping to conduct through this House, both in Committee upstairs and downstairs here, the present law affecting limited companies. I remember the long discussions which we had, both in Committee and on Report stage, as to the responsibility of directors and the penalties which directors might incur. But as far as I can see in this Bill tike members of the board, who are equivalent to the directors of a limited company, are to be freed from the normal penalties to which the individual members of a board of directors
are liable. It may be that in this matter I am wrong. I suffer from the disability of not being a lawyer, and I would lay how much we appreciate the fact that the learned Attorney-General is present constantly throughout these Debates. We all trust his legal advice and admire immensely his patience and courtesy. I say that because one or two of my hon. Friends hinted on Thursday that I was a little lacking in courtesy to him on a certain Amendment. It was entirely unintentional on my part, and I am glad of this opportunity of saying so. I hope that the Attorney-General will give us an exposition of this curious procedure of the control of a business. This is the most appropriate time to discuss it, and I hope that we shall have a rather fuller exposition than was possible on the Amendment.

3.47 p.m.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas lnskip): My hon. Friend has spoken so kindly of me that I rise at once to give what he calls an exposition. I only hope that he will reward what he calls my "patience and courtesy" by not overstraining it. There is nothing which would give me more pleasure than an exposition of this subject, which is reasonably plain to everybody. I part company with my hon. Friend when he thinks that it is a novelty. I could show half-a-dozen cases where precisely the same procedure has been adopted. It is possible to recall two—the Port of London Authority and the Metropolitan Water Board. In both those cases the body created was made a body corporate. Everybody will admit that it is convenient that you should have a body corporate, quite apart from questions connected with the holding of land in perpetuity, in order that everybody may know the easy way of proceeding against them if they should have any claim in a court of law. Clause 2 is merely the customary method of carrying out a proposal of this sort, and I hope that the Committee will see fit to approve of it.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. SMITHERS: Is the constitution of the proposed new board to be on all fours with the Metropolitan Water Board and the Port of London Authority? Speaking from memory, I do not think that the constitution is on all fours with the bodies I have mentioned, and I should like an
explanation of the point before we part with the Clause. I realise that the board proposed to be set up under the Clause is to be a responsible body, but it will also take over a vast number of other occupations. Will the new board give special consideration to the old officials of existing undertakings, who have, perhaps, been brought up in the business and have an intimate knowledge of it? What will be the cost of the officials who are to be taken on, as the Clause also deals with the secretarial and managerial side of the new board? What method will be adopted to fill vacancies when the new board starts or at any future time when vacancies occur Will the method be adopted of advertising in the public Press? Both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary seem to differ from me on this point, but I think it is very important, because we are setting up a body to control an enormous mass of traffic and, as the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has pointed out, it is not subject to that healthy kind of restriction which affects the board of a company. The board of a company has to appear half yearly or yearly before the shareholders, and strong and pertinent questions are put to them. I want some method by which this business can be kept up-to-date and clean—I am not using the word "clean" in any wrong sense. I want the business to be kept efficient and up-to-date, and I want to know how these employés of the board will be appointed and how the vacancies will be made known to those who desire to make application for them.

Mr. WRAGG: Is there any provision for the payment of the salaries of the chairman and members of the board and, if so, what are those amounts likely to be?

Dr. O'DONOVAN: Has the Minister considered whether it is advisable for the board to set up a complete medical service to deal with the many problems that it must handle, to which no reference is made in the Bill?

3.53 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Although I appreciate what my hon. Friend opposite said about the appointment of former members of the staff, I hope this will not be made the occasion simply for appointing
elderly gentlemen who have given long and efficient service, but that the Minister will give an assurance that the best possible people will be appointed. I am in favour of looking after the interests of efficient servants but I hope that in the setting up of this institution—which I have not liked from the beginning—it will not be made an opportunity simply for filling positions with people who are not quite as efficient as they might be, simply because they have given excellent service in the past. Is it under this Clause, or some other Clause, that the legal adviser of the board is appointed? I notice that under Sub-section (3)—
The Board may act notwithstanding a vacancy in their number so long as that number is not reduced below three.
That provision raises the question of a vacancy on the board, which may be a very vital one, and I want an assurance from the Government that the filling A vacancies will not be unduly delayed.

The CHAIRMAN: That does not come under this Clause.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If it does not come under this Clause, of course, I accept your Ruling, but I would point out that Sub-section (3) says:
The Board may act notwithstanding a vacancy in their number.
That shows clearly that the board is given special power to deal with special circumstances. We shall have to deal with that in due time. With regard to Sub-section (6), we are entitled to some information from the Government as to the size of the staff of the proposed board. The board must have a considerable staff, because it will absorb the businesses of various companies, and it is conceivable that it will have large headquarters. I should like to know whether the board have any authority to build or to buy large headquarters.

The CHAIRMAN: That, again, does not come under this Clause.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That, again, will have to be dealt with on the proper occasion. We are, however, entitled to know about the size of the staff. In the interests of the board some considered plan might be given by the Minister as to the size of the staff that he expects the board to have. If the Minister would do that it would give the board some basis on which to go and it would be important coming
from the Minister as representing the Government. Of course, the number must expand or contract from time to time, but the Minister might lay down the basis of the sound economic staff which he thinks would be the best staff for the board to have.

Sir KENYON VAUGHAN-MORGAN: Sub-section (6) deals with the salaries of the Secretary and other officers and servants of the board. What is the relation between officers so appointed and the board, whose salaries are dealt with in Clause 4? Is it possible that a member of the board may at the same time be a servant of the board and come under Clause 2 as well as Clause 4?

Mr. LYONS: I should like to put two questions. The first is in relation to Subsection (2) which says:
The quorum of the board shall be three.
3.59 p.m.
The numbers forming the board have been raised from five to seven. It was originally considered that five would be the constitution of the board. Now that the number has been increased to seven, I should like to know whether the Minister considers that for a concern of this gigantic size a quorum of three is adequate. It occurs to some of us that the vast powers they will have to wield are too great to be used by three people in a board of this nature, which is of an experimental kind.
There is one other question, and that is in reference to Sub-section (3), which says that three shall be a quorum. Reference has been made to the Metropolitan Water Board as offering an assembly of a somewhat similar nature to the institution under this Bill. Looking at the Act of 1902 which constituted the Water Board, it seems that 40 gentlemen formed that board, of which two only, I think, were paid. I do not know whether it has been altered since 1902, but, in my opinion, it is a very different thing to constitute a board of this gigantic nature for the first time, and to have seven highly-paid gentlemen getting salaries about which this House is given no information, and which it cannot assess or control, whereas in the case of the Metropolitan Water Board, I think, only the chairman and the vice-chairman, out of the 40 members constituting that assembly, are paid salaries.

The CHAIRMAN: That is a question which arises more on Clause 4.

Mr. LYONS: I am sorry if I have gone outside the province of this Clause, but I desired to make the point and for the Minister to deal with it at the same time as he dealt with my other question.

4.2 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Sub-section (3) definitely lays down that action may be taken by the board provided that three of the members are present. Considering that this Bill destroys private enterprise and private initiative in the whole transport system of London, and considering that the Committee has now decided that it is desirable that the board should be increased from the original proposal of five members to seven, surely we should not pass this Clause with Sub-section (3) in it to enable three gentlemen to come to an irrevocable decision on the transport conditions of London. It seems a very high-handed proceeding. We think that the risks are very grave in handing over the transport system of London to seven gentlemen, and that if three only—less than a majority—are present they can come to an irrevocable decision with regard to the transport affairs of London. I venture to press the Government carefully to consider this Sub-section and to let us know whether it will be amended at a later date. I hope the Committee will not part with it unless they have some satisfactory assurance from the Government that this quorum and this power to act will be only on technical matters, such as the sealing of documents which have been previously approved by, at any rate, a majority of the board.

4.4 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I apologise to the Committee for not having risen before, but I understood some of my hon. Friends wanted to ask further questions. I have been asked a number of questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) asked how the staff would be appointed, who would be taken over, and what arrangments would be made as to the services of the present staff. If my hon. Friend will turn to Part VII, Clause 71, and the following Clauses, he will find some provisions which deal with superannuation, and so on. So far as the question of appointment is concerned, I cannot say
whether the board will advertise. I should think that for the higher-paid posts the board will propably advertise, but if the board are proper persons to conduct an undertaking of this sort, they will proceed in accordance with the best business methods, and, in my submission, it would be impossible to put in an Act of Parliament arrangements for the engagement of the large staff which will be necessary.
Then my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) asked what would be the size of the staff. That manifestly, is a question which I cannot answer unless he will define what he meant by "staff." If it went down to omnibus drivers and conductors, really there are some thousands of people, and even if my hon. Friend draws the line higher than that, I could not say what the staff will be. The existing staff will be taken over. Their future is safeguarded by the provisions to which I referred, in Part 7 of the Bill, that is to say, they will not be treated unfairly. Those provisions are in accordance with the constant practice in this House in all such Bills as this one.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Does that statement about the taking over of the staff apply to the directors of the companies?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It does not apply to directors, but only to what is called the staff—the servants of the different undertakings. Clause 71 deals with that point. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay asked something about a legal adviser. That would be one of the staff which the Board employed if necessary, and I suppose that it is likely to be necessary. Then a number of hon. Members asked questions about vacancies. It is quite true that Subsection (3) retains the same figure as when the Board was composed of five persons instead of seven, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) pointed out, it is not the least likely that they will act when there are only three persons present, except to do what is called routine business. It would be very inconvenient to require five or six persons for what my hon. Friend described as signing documents and matters of that sort. Then my hon. Friend opposite asked me
whether there was to be a medical staff. No arrangements are contained in the Bill, but no doubt a medical officer would be appointed if it were thought necessary, it might be in connection with the welfare of the staff or not, as the Board thought fit.
Then I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan) whether any person could be both a member of the Board and a member of the staff. It is quite clear, I think, that he could not. Lastly, although I am not sure whether I have left out any of the numerous questions, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) made some observations about salaries. He said that we refused an Amendment about the salaries of the staff. He seems to think that had something to do with the salaries of the Board. The salaries of the Board are fixed by the Minister, and have nothing to do with the last Amendment we rejected. This House will have control over the salaries of the Board, because they will be fixed by the Minister, who will, of course, be answerable to this House. An observation was made by some hon. Member, whose identity I forget for a moment, that a board of directors had to meet the shareholders. Let is be understood that this Board will have to answer all and every question, however searching, which the Minister sees fit to ask under the Bill. There is a special Clause in the Bill which requires the Board to make its report annually in any form and to answer any questions which the Minister thinks fit.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. SMITHERS: There is one question which I asked the learned Attorney General to which, I think, he has not replied. All I ask is, what would be the estimated annual cost of the salaries of the officers of the Board appointed under this Clause?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. Friend that information. The salaries of the board are to be fixed by the Minister.

Mr. SMITHERS: Here we are instituting a board to control this enormous system of transport and the Government cannot even give us a rough estimate of what the salaries of that board shall be.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is referring to the salaries of the board. I must remind him that they do not come under this Clause.

Mr. SMITHERS: With great respect, made a mistake. I mean the officers of the board under this Clause. What will be the cost of the officers who are to be appointed under Clause 2? It seems to me a kind of question that ought to be asked, because I, for one, think that the expenses will be increased under this Bill, and I am surprised that no answer can be given.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is not quite fair of my hon. Friend, because Sub-section (6) of this Clause speaks of the secretary, officers and servants. He now wants me to tell him what is to be the total cost of the staff, and I suppose he means secretary, officers and servants. I say that I cannot tell him the number of the staff, and I cannot say what the remuneration will be.

Mr. SMITH ERS: All I want to know is whether the Government have not some estimate of the cost of the appointments under Clause 2?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Appointments of whom?

4.12 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: There does seem to be a. strong feeling on this point. I do not think anyone could have given a more polite and kindly answer on the whole question of the staff than the Attorney-General, but, after all, we in Parliament are directly concerned. The Attorney-General, said that the Minister would always have power to ask these important questions. We are dealing now only with the staff which the board set up, and we are giving power to the board to set up the staff. We have absolutely no information of the size that this staff may be. Surely when constructing a Measure of this kind, giving powers to a board of this sort to set up a staff, the House of Commons has some right to be informed of the kind and type of staff to be set up. Nor do we know whether they will have a doctor or not, or a lawyer or not. Naturally, the Attorney-General said that he could not state the precise form of staff they will have. That is the whole difficulty. He cannot say that for ever and ever, but
he can give some guidance in the House of Commons, and I say quite frankly that we should be very ill-advised to give the board this power to set up the staff without some clear definition of what size it may ultimately reach.

4.14 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: I think that the Attorney-General was rather unfair to complain of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers). Of course, it is evident that he did not mean his question to apply to conductors and drivers of omnibuses. It is clear that Subsection (6) applies to incidental officers and staff in connection with the administration of this vast system of transport. My hon. Friend did not mean omnibus conductors and drivers of tube trains, of course, but I do think the Government must have in mind, before recommending to the House the adoption of this monopolistic scheme, some idea of what the main administration will cost. We do not suggest that if they put on another fleet of omnibuses between Muswell Hill and Saffron-Malden we should know the cost of that, but we are entitled to some estimate from the Government as to the cost of the board, the secretary and the incidental officers—what they think within a reasonable period of time will be the cost of this administration in lieu of the cost of the administration of those now responsible for London traffic? I do think the Committee has reason to ask that we should have some rough estimate of the cost involved.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. SMITHERS: May I say that I had no intention of being unfair—

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I quite agree.

Mr. SMITHERS: Let me draw the attention of the Attorney-General to Subsection (6), which says:
The board shall appoint a secretary and such other officers and servants as the board may determine, and.…there shall be paid to the secretary, officers and servants of the board such salaries and remuneration, and, on retirement or death, there shall be paid to them or their representatives such pensions and gratuities, as the board may determine.
I want to know the expenditure for which the Board may be liable under this Sub-section.

4.16 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I find it somewhat difficult to understand the argument of hon. Members behind the Government. I understood that they were most anxious that the Government should have nothing to do with this matter and that in their view it would be better to take it right away from the political atmosphere. Now they are complaining because Parliament is not given control over the expenditure of the board.

Sir W. DAVISON: We want to know what we are doing.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I should have thought it is obvious that the expenditure of the board will be on somewhat the same scale as it is at present, with the economies made by amalgamation. Anybody can ascertain what that is by inquiry. It is not quite fair to tell the Minister of Transport that he must have nothing to do with these matters and then expect him to produce an estimate of the expenditure that may be incurred.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. REMER: I have been listening to all the questions that have been put. to the Government in connection with these salaries, but there is one point which has not yet been mentioned, and it is a point of considerable moment. A good many of the officials of the Underground group, who are to be taken over, will be paid salaries under this Clause, and they also hold positions in subsidiary companies, like the Associated Equipment Company, which are not going to be taken over. Will the officials who are to be taken over under this Clause and paid salaries be allowed to occupy positions of directors of companies, subsidiary companies, which are not to be taken over? In my view, that is a point of considerable importance upon which I think the Committee is entitled to some reply from the Government.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has accused some hon. Friends of mine of being a little inconsistent. He does not seem to appreciate our point. Once you have the position that the Minister has power to ask questions of the board it is obvious that in a Bill of this sort it is the duty of individual Members of the House to ascertain the
actual position. I should be much better pleased if the Minister had nothing whatever to do with it, but it is not quite worthy of the hon. and learned Member to bring forward the particular argument of inconsistency. It is very provocative, and I hope will not be brought forward again. I dislike very much the provocative speech. It is difficult to get on with such a serious measure as this if we have provocative speeches, and I hope that the hon. and learned Member will realise that we are not in the least inconsistent in asking that before we pass this Clause we should have some idea of what it really means.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. SMITHERS: Sub-section (6) applies to the officers and servants of the board; that is, the general headquarters, the management of this concern. If the learned Attorney will look at Clause 65 he will find that it refers to employés of the board. I still think it is extraordinary that the Government should set up this board and give it certain powers in regard to salaries and remuneration and yet have no estimate as to cost. I should like to have an answer as to the cost.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The cost of what?

Mr. SMITHERS: Of the appointments under Sub-section (6).

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Really I am very 10th to have to repeat what I have already said. The hon. Member must take it from me that. Sub-section (6) includes everybody who is employed by the board down to the humblest omnibus cleaner, and Clause 65 deals with a certain limited class of people who are there called employés, but Who in other Clauses are called servants.

Mr. REMER: Will the Attorney-General answer my question as to whether they can take over other directorships?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: They will be whole-time servants of the board.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(General duty of Board as to passenger transport.)

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, after the
word "conveniently," to insert the words "and economically."
4.21 p.m.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ascertain whether the board will have powers for rejecting or postponing any scheme if in their opinion it would result in too high an expenditure at a given moment and over-burden the undertaking. Have they the power to postpone it to some favourable occasion? I hope the Government will see their way to accept these words

4.22 p.m.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I can assure the hon. Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan) that, if after careful consideration we were of opinion that these additional words would be of any value, we should have no hesitation whatever in putting them in. The hon. Member will appreciate the fact that the Bill already provides that the enterprise shall be conducted efficiently, and I do not see how it is possible to conduct an enterprise efficiently without doing so in an economical way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not necessarily."] Hon. Members are entitled to their opinions, but my view is that you cannot have efficiency without economy, and therefore the words are not necessary. In the opinion of the Government, the words in the Bill fully cover the point, and we cannot accept the Amendment.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: In case the hon. Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan) wishes to divide, may I point out to him that his Amendment does nut make for good grammar, I do not know whether the point has occurred to him, but the Clause, if these words are inserted, will read:
To provide most efficiently and conveniently and economically for the needs thereof.
That is a bit of a mouth full.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: It lends emphasis to it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If it is a question of emphasis, I think I can do it much better for him. I am sorry that he has not moved his Amendment in what I think is the right way, but if he does so on Report the Government might accept it.

4.24 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I want to emphasise the importance of the addition of these words. The Minister of Transport is of the opinion that you cannot run a scheme efficiently without running it economically. I suppose he has heard of a Rolls-Royce car. I do not think they will be considered inefficient, or that it is an economic proposition for anyone who cannot afford it to indulge in running such a luxury. I think a case has been made out for the addition of the words; and they certainly would be some protection for the public who will have to pay.

Amendment negatived.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 35, to leave out the words "acquire by agreement," and to insert instead thereof the words "by agreement acquire."
This is a purely drafting Amendment, to make it quite plain that the board have no more power to take anything by law compulsorily but to acquire by agreement.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. PARKINSON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, at the beginning, to insert the word "manufacture."
4.27 p.m.
The point raised by the Amendment is the right of the board to manufacture what is necessary for the undertaking. If it is accepted, it will confer upon them the right to make the rolling stock, tile vehicles, and the appliances which are necessary. When the Bill was first introduced, there were five organisations which were producing their own materials for their business. The point I want to raise is that, while the board are being compelled to take over these undertakings, evidently they are not to be given the opportunity of taking over the manufacturing parts of the businesses which they have arranged to purchase. It seems rather ridiculous to compel them to take over a business of this kind and not give them permission to carry on the work of the business. The board are undertaking a large piece of work, the business is simply enormous, and they should be given the opportunity to manufacture anything which they think is necessary in connection with the undertaking. The Board should be able to manufacture more
cheaply than a private company, and it might prevent the formation of rings and combines outside for the purpose of increasing prices. In view of the fact that these businesses were already running when the Bill was introduced, I do not see why they should be taken from the Board now that the Bill is likely to be applied.
The Joint Select Committee dealt with this question rather fully. There was great opposition, but at the same time several admissions were made to the effect that the board should be given such powers. I was looking through the Report of the Select Committee a few days ago. I found that a Mr. Bonallack was asked this question:
(Q.) "Do not the London General Omnibus Company do all their repairs and maintenance themselves?
(A.) That is so.
(Q.) And Tillings?
(A.) I am not aware of Tillings having placed any orders of a substantial nature for bodies with the trade. Their custom has been to manufacture.
It will be seen that one of the opponents of the Bill admits without any qualification that the manufacturing part of Tillings was effective, so far as the company went. In the report of the Joint Committee we also find this statement:
The last 1,600 omnibuses of the London General Omnibus Company were made at Chiswick.
That means a large amount of manufacturing plant.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Bodies or chassis?

Sir PERCY HARRIS: On a point of Order. Clause 21 deals with power to manufacture. Should not the point that has been raised by the Mover of the Amendment be dealt with on Clause 21? If this Amendment is carried will not Clause 21 go to the wall?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not see that there is anything out of order so far.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Does not the point arise also on Clause 6? If this Amendment is carried would not it cut out the discussion on that Clause?

The CHAIRMAN: I am not quite sure what sort of discussion the hon. and gallant Gentleman means. If the Committee come to a certain decision on this
Amendment we cannot reconsider that decision on subsequent Clauses.

Mr. PARKINSON: I was making a quotation from the report of the Joint Committee, in which was a statement, that the last 1,600 omnibuses of the London General Omnibus Company were made at Chiswick, and that means that they must have a very large amount of manufacturing plant there. If this Amendment is rejected of course that plant will have to be scrapped. The scrapping of the plant means nothing more nor less than trying to force them out of business, in order that private enterprise may have freer scope and greater opportunities of putting a block in the wheel of progress in connection with the undertaking. There is the question of the loss of employment involved. These plants employ a large number of people. I do not know how many, but we will say that there are 1,000. If the plants are closed down these 1,000 people will possibly, and probably, be thrown on the unemployment funds and lose their status as workmen. We are not told whether if the work goes to private enterprise, the requirements will be met without the putting down of more plant. I do not think the requirements will be met without such a step being taken. Another question which was raised by the Joint Committee was dealt with by Sir Henry Maybury. No one will challenge the authority of Sir Henry Maybury to speak on matters of this kind. On page 966 of the Joint Committee's Report he states that the London General Omnibus Company manufacture all their bodies. In answer to a question Sir Henry Maybury also said:
I think, as this is a very big customer indeed for rolling stock of all kinds, of omnibuses and tramcars, that they should he put into the position of being able to supply themselves. That would enable them so to arrange their work that they could undertake to supply the vehicles as and when they were required.
No one would suggest that that statement was made with anything but the most sincere desire to help the board in its work. Sir Henry Maybury's word ought to be accepted, for we have no one with greater experience of transport and its requirements. The London County Council in their Co-ordination Bill state:
That a Clause had been agreed between the London County Council and the Under
ground group on the one hand, and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, providing for the giving of power to the promoters to manufacture or to apply their funds to the manufacture of any road motor vehicle or part thereof.
That was an agreed Clause. Although the people who got that agreement through were satisfied to take the power to manufacture, I understand that practically the same people are opposing the power being given to the board to manufacture under this Bill. If the promoters had the right conceded under the London County Council Co-ordination Bill, why should it be denied to this board by the same people? Is the objection raised in order to give freer play to the rings and combines? That would mean probably a higher cost of production and a heavier expenditure being heaped upon the board.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: Why did you destroy the Bill?

Mr. PARKINSON: Surely there should be the same power given against excessive prices as was given in the case of the London County Council. This is a danger which must be taken into serious consideration. We all know the danger of the operations of rings and combines, particularly in a competitive business of this kind. Under the Bill the board will be called upon to manage its undertakings in the best interests of the community of London, 5,000,000 people. The board should be given the greatest freedom to utilise every opportunity for making this scheme a success, but under this Clause they are in a sense having their arms tied behind them, without being able to use them. They should be given the fullest opportunity to manufacture all that is required. They should have opportunity for experiment and research, for in a great manufacture like this we cannot do without experiment and research. It should include co-operation with the Government, and exploration of the possibilities of using heavy oil instead of imported petrol. That would help the coal-mining industry. If the board is to carry on its work successfully it must be given a free hand in these matters, and must have fair play.

4.39 p.m.

Captain NORTH: I very much hope that the Government will not accept the Amendment. I am not exactly in love with the Bill, but if the Amendment were
accepted I think that the Bill would definitely become at least 100 per cent. worse. A monopoly has already been created, and the Amendment would create a further monopoly in the manufacture of transport vehicles. Obviously it would be unfair for the board to compete with a private manufacturer of transport, for the board has been created by the State and it would have behind it all kinds of things which the private manufacturer has not. For instance, if the board goes on losing money nothing at all happens to it; it goes on, and someone has to pay. In the case of a private manufacturer that does not apply. If the private manufacturer keeps on losing money he very shortly becomes bankrupt. Suppose that the board were merely confined to manufacturing motor omnibuses and things of that description for its own use. It would be obvious that it could not compete with a private manufacturer, who was manufacturing for the export trade in competition with the foreigner; but it seems to me then that we would have a board which was producing an article that was not economical. For instance, why should it build an omnibus which is more expensive and more comfortable, when it is known very well that if a cheaper one is built the public will have to travel by it?

4.41 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: I would state shortly the reasons why the Government cannot accept the Amendment. The question whether the board should have the power of manufacturing was debated before the Joint Committee, and the objections of the various manufacturing interests were there heard. As a result of the evidence, some of which has been quoted, and also the evidence given by the manufacturers, the Joint Committee decided that the manufacturing powers of the board should be limited to those set out in Clause 21 of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment misunderstands the position with regard to the Chiswick works. The Chiswick works never did make chassis; they made omnibus bodies only, and also carried out a good deal of repair work and maintenance. The hon. Member spoke of 1,000 employés. It would be quite wrong to assume that if the whole of the bodies for the new company were not manufactured in Chiswick, all those people would be put out of work. A good many of
them now are engaged in maintenance work and would continue so to be employed, I assume.
There is another point to which the hon. Member will not fail to give due weight. This power to manufacture would not be of benefit even if the Amendment were accepted. Nobody would presume that the board will set up a great factory to compete with other manufacturers for contracts. Therefore its output would be limited. The chances that it could manufacture under these conditions at the same cost as could concerns which were getting exports orders, are remote. I think the Committee will feel that it is just as well that the board, having such enormous responsibilities for conducting transport over the whole of this great area, should not have its energies dissipated in this work of manufacture. Therefore while, under the Bill, we do allow them certain powers in this respect for experimental and research purposes, we could not accept an Amendment of this character.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON: I think the Minister is under a misunderstanding. He spoke about open competition with other producers, but the Amendment does not involve that at all. This does not speak about open competition with other producers in any part of the country or in any part of the world. It only asks that the board should be allowed to manufacture for their use or for use in connection with their undertaking. I may point out that at the time when Mr. Morrison's Bill was introduced there were the following manufacturing establishments—the London General Omnibus Company at Chiswick Works, Messrs. Thomas Tilling and Messrs. Birch Bros. for omnibus bodies; the Union Construction Company for District Railway tube trains and for tramcars, and the West and East Ham Councils for tramcars. We are not asking in this Amendment for any new machinery but are asking that the machinery which is already there and which has either been paid for or will be paid for by the board should be given an opportunity of carrying on the work.

Mr. PYBUS: There is no misunderstanding. I said that the restriction on the power to manufacture rendered the
cost of the product greater. My point was that the cost would be increased because of the very restriction that rolling stock and apparatus could only be manufactured for the board's own use.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. MITCHELL: I only intervene in this discussion because the London General Omnibus Company's works at Chiswick are on the boundary of my constituency and many of my constituents are closely involved in this question. While appreciating and supporting the provision in the Bill which allows a certain amount of manufacture to be conducted in those works, I wish to ask the Minister, since he cannot accept the full measure of the Amendment, whether it would not be possible to give the new board manufacturing powers which would enable Chiswick works to develop to full capacity. As the Bill stands they are limited and prevented from getting the full benefit of those works. I have had an opportunity in the last few months of seeing over these works and I can assure the House that they are among the most modern works of their kind in this country and among the most up-to-date in the world. We are handing over to this new Transport Board assets many of which may prove to be of doubtful value, but when we have a really good asset as I believe we have in these Chiswick works, it seems a pity that we should restrict the board from working it to its full capacity.
Anyone who has had experience of business will agree that there is all the difference in the world between working a factory at 100 per cent. capacity and working it at any smaller figure. It may mean all the difference between a profit and a loss. It is conceivable that omnibus traffic will increase. We may see a decrease of tramway traffic, and it may be desirable to produce more omnibus bodies in the future. It would be lamentable if the board were prevented from using the Chiswick works to their full capacity and had to go out and buy a new site and erect works elsewhere. Therefore I would ask the Minister to meet the Amendment if not half way at least a portion of the way by providing that the Chiswick works should be able to manufacture not only to the average of the last five years but in what is the only efficient manner namely, at full capacity.

4.49 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I do not think that we need bother much about the future of the Chiswick works of the London General Omnibus Company. As has already been pointed out, that is really a repair and maintenance depot to a very large extent. Those works will be kept busy maintaining an efficient fleet of omnibuses in operation and under Clause 21 of the Bill they are to be allowed to build a certain amount—up to the average of the last five years. That ought to keep those works very active. An hon. Member who spoke earlier made a remark which I somewhat resented, because it conveyed the impression that if you manufactured for a monopoly then naturally you did not make a vehicle which was efficient. I would point to the manufacture of the chassis for the omnibuses of London, and I ask the Committee whether the omnibuses in London are not as good as any to be found in the world. These have been made for the London General Omnibus Company in what I suppose may be termed a monopolistic works.
The Select Committee said, however, that this board was to be divorced from the Associated Equipment Company, and as far as I can see their decision was based on very broad grounds. I think it would have been an advantage if, years ago, we had made it compulsory on all the railway companies of England to have had their engines and trucks made by private enterprise. If that had been done great works of that type would have been built up here but as it is at present we do not export the number of locomotives or trucks that we ought to export. If firms had had that support from the railway companies to which they were entitled, we should do a great deal better in that respect. Although I am a director of the Associated Equipment Company I must say that I can see the force of the Select Committee's decision, and I do not see why this Amendment should be pressed.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. MAITLAND: I support what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore - Brabazon), particularly his concluding observations as to the importance of the manufacture of rolling-stock in this country, and the possibility of rolling-stock being made by private manufacturers. This
question was considered before the Joint Committee and it was there stated that only about 17 per cent. of the rolling-stock manufactured by private builders was for home use and that about 83 per cent. had been manufactured for export purposes. If these undertakings are permitted to manufacturers—most of them at the present time do not manufacture—I can see the possibility of a great effect upon our export trade.
In further support of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey, may I remind the Committee that in Germany and in other countries the railway companies do not manufacture their own rolling stock but give out their work to private enterprise. This means that the manufacturers of rolling stock in those countries have a very great advantage as compared with the manufacturers here, in that they have a steady and constant demand which makes it possible for them to keep down their working costs. Like other hon. Members of this Committee, I am not enamoured of this Bill, and I think that the work which this board will have to do is going to be extraordinarily difficult. I am satisfied that they will have quite enough difficulties in their way without giving them the added difficulty of manufacture. The Mover of the Amendment raised a point as to research work, but I think he will find that in Clause 21 of the Bill power has been given to the board to carry out such research work as may be necessary.

Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Member who has just spoken has supplied us with a very good reason why we should have this Amendment.

Captain STRICKLAND: Had you not a good reason before

4.55 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: Certainly, but hon. Members who have spoken against the Amendment have considerably strengthened it. An hon. Member who spoke earlier was possibly right in saying that the most efficient way of manufacturing vehicles is to have it done by people who cater for both the export and the home trade, but we have often experienced that where you have a system which gives a secure home market for a particular manufacturing interest, there is nothing to prevent that interest from competing abroad by charging high prices at home.
When that kind of thing is done by foreign countries hon. Members opposite say it is a very wicked thing and call it dumping. When it is done by our own people it is called sound business and the building-up of export trade.
Here you are going to set up a monopoly of a very large kind over a very large traffic area. Before this, you had a considerable monopoly in connection with a large part of London transport and that monopoly had a manufacturing association closely connected with it called the Associated Equipment Co. I heard no protest in that case that it was a wicked thing that a monopoly should also have manufacturing arrangements. Hon. Members apparently think that that is all right for a private monopoly but that it is all wrong for a public monoply. What is required here is that the Board should have the power to manufacture, because it is necessary to have that check against the possibility of the board being held up by a trust formed at home and to prevent the possibility of the citizens of London being charged more for their travel, in the form of excessive prices for vehicles, in order that foreign trade may be captured by the export of more lowly-priced vehicles. The Minister's main point was that what was in the Bill was the decision of the Select Committee. It is news to me to know that the Minister thinks so highly of the decisions of that committee. Hitherto on this Bill he has been messing up the Select Committee's work by the substitutions made in Clause 1. After all the Select Committee's view is not final, and I do not think that the Minister ought to use that argument. If the House of Commons is to be effective as a reviewing body it is no use saying that we must do certain things because a committee has decided them. The Select Committee's decisions are merely guides to us.
In Clause 6 of the Bill there is a provision with regard to the Associated Equipment Company. I take it the design of the Clause is that the new authority should continue to work with the Associated Equipment Company. I do not think that the board ought to be in the hands of any manufacturing body. If I may quote a relevant comparison, I ask hon. Members to consider another
experiment in connection with which the Conservative party took a, prominent part, namely, the Central Electricity Board. In Committee upon that Measure a proposal was made by a Birmingham Member that the board should be obliged to buy all their electrical machinery from British firms. It was opposed by a prominent Member who was a director of several electricity undertakings. He pointed out that by such a proposal you would be completely in the hands of the home manufacturers. He said that although it was against his Protectionist faith he was obliged to oppose such a proposal, because he was a buyer of electrical machinery. In this case we are setting up a similar, body and unless we give them these powers they will not be able to protect themselves against monopoly.
There is a further point with regard to Clause 21, which was referred to indirectly by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who appeared to imagine that Clause 21 gave a power to manufacture. As a matter of fact, that Clause gives a restriction on the power to manufacture. If there is to be no power to manufacture by the board, what becomes of Clause 21, which is a "restriction on power of manufacture "? Perhaps the Minister will explain that point. On the question of principle, I think there is a case for the full utilisation of such manufacturing plant as is being handed over, as it would be sheer waste to scrap it. Secondly, I think some manufacture should be carried on by the board in order to check competition; and above all there is a case for this board having the power to manufacture, although they will probably not exercise it to any large extent, in order to check the citizens of London being milked dry by charges for vehicles supplied by companies mainly interested in the making of profit out of the export trade.

5.1 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I rise to oppose the Amendment, which is one to empower what must be regarded as a vast monopoly, not to carry on the business for which it is being composed, namely, that of the co-ordination of traffic, but to go beyond that scope altogether and to enter into the field of industry as well.
There is a point with regard to the existing plant and machinery, which is covered, I suggest, by Clause 21, but I want to plead for a, vast number of working men in a great many industrial centres throughout the country, who today are dependent on the trade that they do, and that may be done, in connection with the great London area, a trade which might be taken out of their hands by a board ambitious to exercise its full power as granted in the Bill. For many years those men have been engaged in the skilled industry of the making and manufacture of coaches, chassis, and the hundred and one different appliances and apparatus that go to make up the coaches and omnibuses in the London area. I do not suggest that they have done the whole of that work, but they have had their share of it, and where you have a vast combination such as is proposed under this Bill, with the power to enter into the field of industry, it will not be slow to take advantage of it, particularly from the point of view that it can continue to do so almost unchecked, even though its manufacturing may be run at a loss.
There is another point which is equally serious, and it is a point that has brought me, although not a London Member, into opposition to this Bill, because my constituency of Coventry is very greatly interested in the manufacture of rolling stock, vehicles, motors, chassis, and bodies. You are going to throw on to the one central body the strain of organising, not only the traffic of this great area, but the manufacture of what is a very highly technical trade. I can quite understand the remark of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) that you are already imposing a very heavy burden on this board, but why, if he realises that tremendous burden, does he propose to add to it and to increase the difficulties that the board will have to meet? The creation of such a manufacturing centre as this, with all its capabilities, and with the closed market that it could occupy, might very easily mean the greatest disaster to the motor trade of this country, and that would mean an equal disaster to the chassis trade, the body trade, and the manufacture of all the apparatus that is being carried on at present outside this area.
It was not the original intention of the Socialist Government, whose Bill we are now trying to pass through, that manufacturing should enter into the scheme of their Bill. Mr. Wilfrid Greene, for the promoters of the Bill, made it quite clear before the Committee that the Socialist Government of that time did not seek this power for the board beyond the existing capacity of the Chiswick works. He said:
It must be premises which are being used at the date of the transfer. If you built a new bit, that would not fall within the definition, because that bit would not he used at the date of the transfer.
It is obvious that even the Socialist Government, when they introduced this Measure, did not visualise the manufacture of goods as part and parcel of the business of the co-ordination of London passenger transport. Sir Henry Maybury, a witness for the promoters of the Bill, whose word as an expert was accepted at once by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, who have such a love for experts, emphasised the point that if the board were authorised to manufacture, other works would have to be built, because Chiswick was a repair and general fitting-up place. That was the evidence brought forward by the promoters of the original Bill. Everything has been considered by the Joint Select Committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the whole of the arguments having been gone into and the witnesses for and against the Bill having been closely examined, and there can be no question as to the conclusion at which that Committee arrived. It was against the granting of these extensive powers of manufacture to the board which it was proposed to set up.
I want to emphasise a point that has been made by several of my hon. Friends, as to the general effect on our export trade of authorising the board to manufacture. I know it seems a far stretch of the imagination, but you have works all over the country, which Sir Henry Maybury himself says are capable of supplying the whole of the needs that may arise under this Clause for the manufacture of the various requirements for omnibuses in London, and power is given to this corporation to remove that market entirely. The more competitors you have entering for a contract, the more likely you are to get the greater
value; and the more people you have striving to produce a better type of vehicle in order to attract an order to their own works, the greater is the ultimate comfort of the London passengers in the matter of chassis, bodies, springing, and so on.
It has been by that open competition in the past that the London omnibuses, and indeed the coaches all over the country, have been brought to their present state of perfection. You have had the whole of your manufacturing centres competing in the endeavour to supply something a little better for the use of the public; but if you have this board established, and it likes to exercise its powers to manufacture—because you have enabled it to erect works, lay down plant, and engage the men—it is enabled to hold such a position that the whole of the outside competition could be cut out entirely, and you would have no spur on the board to manufacture something better than has been made before. You will inflict a great hardship on skilled workmen who are settled down in various centres and who cannot easily change their places, and I hope the working men engaged in these industries in the constituencies of those who support the Amendment will take note of the way in which their Members have spoken on this Amendment. You will have the possibility of these men being rendered unable to get work in their own district, and you will place power in the hands of this board in London to concentrate in one place the whole of this industry.
I suggest that it would be extraordinarily unwise for this board, hampered as it will be by the need for the co-ordination of the traffic, to have this other business placed in its hands, a business which if the board is at all ambitious, it is almost certain to exercise, to the detriment of districts outside London. It is not just the Underground, or the London General Omnibus Company, or Tilling. It means that very nearly 100 independent omnibus undertakings are to be compelled to sell their concerns into the hands of this central board, and it is not only these big shows, which may be able to manufacture their own goods, but it is these smaller companies, which have been giving their orders to various constituencies all over the country, which will now
have to place their orders in accordance with the decision of the board under whose power they will come. I hope that the Committee will reject this advance towards Socialism, which underlies the whole principle of this Bill, by a great majority.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: No one has yet answered the question that was put by the hon. Member for Brentord and Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell), and I am not sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut. - Colonel Moore-Brabazon) is correct when he says that the works at Chiswick are working full time and to the utmost of their capacity. No one has answered the question of what is to be done with those workmen. The hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) was very anxious that we should remember workmen ail over the country, but those of us who live in and about London must remember the workmen who are living in London; and the London workers who have been employed at Chiswick on the manufacture of bodies will be thrown out of work if this new concern is not to be allowed to manufacture.

Captain STRICKLAND: May I point out that in Clause 21 the rights of Chiswick are protected?

Mr. MITCHELL: No.

Captain STRICKLAND: They are, in so far as they have been carrying on work for the last five years: and we are not taking it away from them.

Mr. LANSBURY: When we come to Clause 21 we shall question that, as we do not think they are protected. We disagree with the hon. and gallant Member, and it is because we disagree with him and because this is an occasion on which to make it quite clear that he means what he has just said, that we want this Amendment carried. If the Amendment fails, we ought to have an Amendment covering the manufacture of bodies or exactly the work that is being carried on there now.
There is another point. I am not one of those who agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey, who, I am sorry to see, is not now in his place. I give way to him for his expert knowledge on many things, but as a very old rail
way traveller, I do not think it is a fact that the railway companies, especially the old Midland Company, or the Great Western Company, or the London and North Western Company, have been behindhand in providing the most up-to-date and the most comfortable and smooth running rolling stock in the world. I have travelled the world over, and there is no rolling stock better than the rolling stock in the British Isles. The engine made by the Great Western Railway Company in its own works, the "Cheltenham Flyer," which went to the United States, beat everything else. It is, therefore, too late in the day to tell us that the users of machinery cannot be trusted to manufacture it.
I would put this further point to the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry. If this were a private trust, which was set up by a number of people, and, through a Private Bill, given a monopoly of the passenger traffic of London, I am certain that they would never allow the manufacture of rolling stock to go out of their own hands. I am certain that if they did not do it through the parent company, they would establish a subsidiary company, and by that means keep the matter under their own control. What nonsense it is for hon. Members to talk as if we were asking for something extraordinary. The Associated Equipment Company, of which the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey is a director, is a creature of the London General Omnibus Company. It is one of its children, one of its subsidiary companies. Why should it be right for a private company to manufacture its rolling stock and not right for a public utility company of this kind? There is no argument against it, and it is fallacious to argue that we are going to rid some people somewhere else of work. We shall not reduce the amount of work in the country. The only thing that will happen is that some people in London may be doing the work, instead of some people in Coventry, and, as I am a London Member, I should like more of it to be done in London than in Coventry. The Ministry of Transport has not at all met the case for this Amendment. If this were a private company which was given a monopoly by this House of the passenger traffic of London, I am certain that they would do what every great monopoly does and bring
every one of its services under its own control. Why this public utility company should not have the same right passes my comprehension.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: The matter which the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell) raises should more properly be raised on Clause 21. It is perfectly clear that Chiswick will be retained as a maintenance depot. In that Clause is set out an agreement which was arrived at in the joint committee as to the amount of output which Chiswick will be able to maintain, that being the average for five years.

Mr. LANSBURY: It is a very bad average if you take this year.

Mr. MITCHELL: While we appreciate that the Government have permitted the Chiswick works to continue to manufacture, it does not entirely meet the case.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member must postpone that until we come to Clause 21.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. MITCHELL: I accept your Ruling, but I only mentioned it because the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) seems to think that his constituents were being penalised by the Bill to the advantage of London. I wanted to put in a plea for those workers in Chiswick who may, I feel, not get that measure of employment which they would be entitled to under the Bill. In deference to your Ruling, however, I will raise the matter on Clause 21.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should like to join with the Leader of the Opposition in his tribute to the Great Western Railway. He has shown that even he is beginning to realise that all the virtues are in private enterprise. I hope, under the circumstances, that I may persuade the Labour party that their Amendment is out-of-date according to their Leader's latest pronouncement, and that they will withdraw it and not weary the Committee with a Division.

Question put, "That the word 'manufacture' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 26; Noes, 280.

Division No. 13.]
AYES.
[3.26 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Donner, P. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Doran, Edward
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Anstruther-Gray. W. J.
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Iveagh, Countess of


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Drewe, Cedric
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Balniel, Lord
Duckworth, George A. V.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Bateman, A. L.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Duncan, James-A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Ker, J. Campbell


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Dunglass, Lord
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Eden, Robert Anthony
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Bernays, Robert
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Knight, Helford


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Elmley, Viscount
Leckle, J. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Levy, Thomas


Bowyer. Capt. Sir George E. W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lindsay, Noel Kar


Brass, Captain Sir William
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Broadbent, Colonel John
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fox. Sir Gifford
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Burnett, John George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mabane. William


Butler, Richard Austen
Glossop, C. W. H.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Goff, Sir Park
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Goldie, Noel B.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Castlereagh, viscount
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Granville, Edgar
McLean, Major Alan


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Graves. Marjorie
Maitland, Adam


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Clarry, Reginald George
Grimston, R. V.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Conent, R. J. E.
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cook, Thomas A.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Cooke, Douglas
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hartland, George A.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Copeland, Ida
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Crookshank. Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
North, Captain Edward T.


Cross, R. H.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A


Crossley, A. C
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Patrick, Colin M.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Horobin, Ian M.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Denman, Hon. R D,
Horsbrugh, Florence
Percy, Lord Eustace


Denville, Alfred
Howard, Tom Forrest
Perkins, Walter R. D


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Salmon, Major Isidore
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Salt, Edward W.
Todd. A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Potter, John
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Savery, Samuel Servington
Turton, Robert Hugh


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Scone, Lord
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Pybus, Percy John
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Slater, John
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Rankin, Robert
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Rathbone, Eleanor
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Rea, Walter Russell
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Womersley, Walter James


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Remer, John R.
Stewart, William J.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Rentoul Sir Gervais S.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wragg, Herbert


Robs, Ronald D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.



Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Sugden. Sir Wilfrid Hart
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Runge, Norah Cecil
Tate, Mavis Constance
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
McEntee, Valentine L.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Daggar, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

Division No. 14.]
AYES.
[5.20 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield, John William
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Thorne, William James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hicks, Ernest George
Wallhead, Richard C.


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James



Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William
Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.



NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Duckworth, George A. V.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Albery, Irving James
Duggan, Hubert John
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'l, W.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dunglass, Lord
Knebworth, Viscount


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Eales, John Frederick
Knight, Holford


Aske, Sir Robert William
Eden, Robert Anthony
Knox, Sir Alfred


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Elmley, Viscount
Leckie, J. A.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Levy, Thomas


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Fermoy, Lord
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Blindell, James
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Boulton, W. W.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Mabane, William


Bowater, Col. sir T. Vansittart
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
MacAndrew. Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Glossop, C. W. H.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Goff, Sir Park
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Goldie, Noel B.
McKie, John Hamilton


Broadbent, Colonel John
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Macmilian, Maurice Harold


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Granville, Edgar
Maitland, Adam


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Burnett, John George
Graves, Marjorie
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Butler, Richard Austen
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Martin, Thomas B.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Campbell-Johnston, Maicolm
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hanley, Dennis A.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moreing, Adrian C.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Morrison, William Shepherd


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Clarry, Reginald George
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
North, Captain Edward T.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Colfox, Major William Philip
Holdsworth, Herbert
Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Conant, R. J. E.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Patrick, Colin M.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Peake, Captain Osbert


Cooke, Douglas
Horobin, Ian M.
Pearson, William G.


Cooper, A. Duff
Horsbrugh, Florence
Penny, Sir George


Copeland, Ida
Howard, Tom Forrest
Percy, Lord Eustace


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Petherick, M.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'ptn, Bilston)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Potter, John


Cross, R. H.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Crossley, A. C.
Iveagh, Countess of
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Pybus, Percy John


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Janner, Barnett
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Dickie, John P.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Donner, P. W.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rankin, Robert


Drewe, Cedric
Ker, J. Campbell
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Ray, Sir William
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Rea, Walter Russell
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Slater, John
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Smithers, Waldron
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Somervllle, Annesley A (Windsor)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ron Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Rungo, Norah Cecil
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)
Stones, James
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Strauss, Edward A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Salmon, Major Isidore
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wise, Alfred R.


Salt, Edward w.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Withers, Sir John James


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Summersby, Charles H.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Tate, Mavis Constance
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Savery, Samuel Servington
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wragg, Herbert


Scone, Lord
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noakt)


Selley, Harry R.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)



Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—




Mr. Womersley and Lord Erskine.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: I beg page 4, line 6, at the end, words:
including power to make, under regulations drawn up by the board, payments to hospitals for the treatment of patients injured by vehicles owned or controlled by the board.
5.30 p.m.
This Amendment is in no sense put forward with the object of obstructing business, but because I think the position which exists in our hospitals calls for clarification, if that be possible. The extent of the problem dealt with in this Amendment is indicated by two statements. First we have had the statement of His Majesty's judges lately that 60 per cent. of contentious litigation is due to road accidents, and, secondly, we have all read with appreciation the powerful speeches of Lord Buckmaster in another place. They reflect the amount of work which road traffic throws upon our hospitals. In paragraph (e) of Sub-section (3) of Clause 3 the board has power to:
do or cause to be done all things necessary for the convenient and efficient working of their undertaking.
That is a most powerful operative paragraph, and I and my friends are very anxious that in doing all things which are necessary, which I take it means all things which are humane and just, the board shall not be shackled by past restrictions. The Government gave attention to the payment of road accidents in Clause 36 of the Road Traffic Act, under which the insurer, the insurance company, is compelled by statute to reimburse hospitals where a compensated third party has been treated as an in-patient
up to an amount not exceeding £25. That of course, is a contemptible amount. It is a most welcome recognition of the work of the hospitals, but in practice it means that the voluntary hospitals, which make this traffic tolerable to human society, receive only about 10 per cent. of their outgoings. Further, this expenditure is restricted to hospitals which are defined by that Act as affording in-patient treatment. I need hardly ask the Minister to imagine what is the cost of dressings, strappings, stitches, chloroform, the attendance of a nurse and the cleaning up afterwards for a dirty accident mess that does not need any in-patient treatment. It may easily run to from £4 to £7, yet the hospital is precluded under the Act from even making a claim. Numbers of lives are saved by modern major surgery, but the cost of the accidents mount up, and the bill is not liquidated by death. A thorough-going first-class accident can cost a hospital £130 to £170, and patients sometimes remain in the hospital for 18 months after they are admitted.
Therefore, this is a problem calling for consideration from the point of view of justice. Anyone going into hospitals which are situated on our main lines of traffic will see wards which should be devoted to the sick filled with forests of masts sustaining broken limbs under treatment for fractures. This board, which will control so much of our traffic, will set the pace for the whole of London and the environs, and will be the biggest factor, I fear, in the production of such accidents. We doctors attach no particular blame to modern motor transport. The public must acclimatise itself to it
and get out of the way, as it has learned to get out of the way of snakes and lions. Humanity will survive, but it is an expensive process to mend the survivors. I appeal to the Minister to give us some light on whether, under this most powerful Clause, the board will be able to reimburse hospitals more amply and generously than they have been treated under the Road Traffic Act.

5.34 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: I do not wish to say much in supporting my hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment, but Clause 51 of the Bill withdraws from the board any compulsion to have their vehicles insured, and we want to know what attitude the Minister takes up in this matter. Judging by Clause 51 it looks as though the board are going to pay no attention to the matter. The Minister may suggest that when we come to Clause 51 he will deal with the matter, but my hon. Friend has shown that even so that would be insufficient. The withdrawal of Clause 51 would put the board back on the same footing as other large authorities, but, as I say, even that is not sufficient. I cannot see that any Amendment, or even the abandonment of that Clause, would meet the case, and therefore we want to have it clearly and definitely stated whether, as regards hospital treatment, this paragraph (e) can be so interpreted as to cover the normal practice of good employrs in supporting hospitals where there is a moral claim upon them for services rendered arising out of the work of the company.

5.37 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have listened with interest and with sympathy to the speeches of both my hon. Friends. The Government cannot very well accept the Amendment in the form in which it stands, but we do want it to be perfectly clear that we do not want this board to be in any different position from that of the undertakings which it succeeds. Therefore, Clause 51, which takes the board out of the scope of Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, is one which we shall not be prepared to hold on to when the time comes for its consideration. There is nothing in this Bill—

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Hear, hear !

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: My hon. Friend thinks there is a good deal to object to. There is nothing which will preclude the board from continuing and even extending the practice, followed by certain of the companies whose undertakings are to be transferred of making voluntary contributions to hospitals, and we do not see that there is any reason why we should make a special exception in the case of this board, over and above any other undertaking, by imposing special obligations upon it in the way suggested. I can assure both my hon. Friends that we shall bear in mind their point of view, and when Clause 51 comes up we shall be prepared to remove it from the Bill.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The Minister has gone a long way to meet the views of many people, but I would point out that after all this is not a mandatory Amendment but only one expressing a pious opinion. The Minister stated that he would probably withdraw Clause 51. I suggest that he might accept this Amendment and, if necessary, alter its wording on Report stage. As. I have said, this Amendment is not mandatory, but is only laying down a sound principle, and it would go a very long way towards making people feel that we are doing nothing to tie the hands of the board while at the same time saying that it is the opinion of the House that great companies of this kind should make contributions to hospitals. We are not forcing them, but simply laying down a big, broad, public principle. That is why I think the Minister has no justification for turning down the Amendment, and he has given no practical reason why it should not be included in the Bill. It does not bind anyone, and in my opinion does express a view which the Minister might easily accept in the common interest.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: In view of what the Minister has so kindly and benevolently said, in particular his remarks that the Government have no intention of constricting the present payments made by the existing bodies which are to be absorbed in this Clause, and may even extend the present practice, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

5.41 p.m.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I hope the Committee will bear with me while I remind them of the extreme importance of this Clause and particularly of Sub-sections (1) and (4). In Sub-section (1) it states that the general duty of the board shall be
so to exercise their powers under this Act as to secure.
The purpose which they are to secure might, I think, have been attained without the exercise of compulsory powers of acquisition, on which this Bill depends. No one takes exception to the necessity of setting out the purpose of the board, nor to the terms in which that purpose is stated. Co-ordination is necessary—nobody quarrels about that; and the desire for certain improved facilities in different parts of London is conceded on all sides. But all that could have been attained, and was in fact proposed, by the legislative Measures of 1928 and 1929. The Government, however, did not see fit to proceed on those lines, but to erect this vast monopoly with compulsory purchase and other features to which we have a right to take exception. Sub-section (4) is likewise extremely important. The Board, if they fail to make their undertaking as satisfactory from the public point of view as one would desire, can excuse their action and seek protection under the provisions of that Sub-section. If and when—when, as I see it—they raise fares and curtail facilities they will be able to justify their action under this Sub-section.
I desire the Committee to realise the momentous step which will be taken if we pass this Clause, and the restrictions which they are imposing on the liberty of the passenger. In the course of the Debate this afternoon the alleged parallel of the Central Electricity Board was cited once again. It has been pointed out time and again that the two undertakings do not present a parallel. If the Central Electricity Board were endowed with powers anything like those which this London traffic monopoly will enjoy, then instead of planning the generation of electricity for the country on national lines it would be their duty to acquire all
the gas undertakings and all the oil refineries, to restrict and curtail the output of coal mines, gas works and the rest of it, and every consumer of every kind of fuel would be put under a restriction. If this board is formed the passenger in the London area, the consumer of this form of accommodation, will have no appeal and no choice. He has to accept what the Board choose to let him have. It is exactly, as I have said, like the Electricity Commissioners restricting supplies of fuel and light, so that consumers of those two necessary commodities would be compelled to take exactly what the Electricity Commissioners chose to supply.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member is now making a Third Reading speech.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I have, perhaps, extended a little farther than the strict limits of the Clause might admit, but I was drawn away by the parallel which is so often made between the board that is being set up by this Bill and the Electricity Commissioners. I have done my duty in calling attention to the grave importance of the Clause, which should not, in my judgment, be lightly dismissed or without full understanding of its true import.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: This is, of course, the main operative Clause, and it is therefore entitled to our fullest consideration before we add it to the Bill. The board which, as we decided on Tuesday and Thursday, will be under the control of the Minister, has to exercise all the great powers laid down in Sub-section (1). The words of the Sub-section represent in one sense a definition of the powers of the board, and in another they represent a general aspiration. I hope that the Minister or the Attorney-General will deliver to us on this occasion the speech, or a part of the speech, which it was the intention to deliver on the occasion when the Motion was made to report Progress, on Tuesday of last week. This is the opportunity to justify this Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: It has already been decided to set up the board, and I cannot allow any hon. Member to argue justification of the Bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I thought that the Minister would justify the proposal that there should be set up a board which is to perform the functions described in Sub-section (1).

The CHAIRMAN: The board has already been set up by Clause 2, and passed.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sorry that I slipped in my phrasing. What I mean is that the Minister shall justify the declaration of policy contained in Sub-section (1) that the board constituted under the other Clause has to co-ordinate and organise London traffic by taking over all the undertakings in the Schedule and running them as one undertaking. That is properly the subject matter for discussion.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow that discussion either.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Sub-section (2) reads:
The undertakings and parts of undertakings which are by this Act transferred to the board, and any undertakings or parts of undertakings which under this Act are from time to time acquired, taken on lease or established by the board, shall constitute, and be administered by them as, one undertaking.
There is the statement that there shall be set up as a monopoly all those undertakings. It is that that I was seeking to argue. I hope that I am not out of order in drawing attention to the fact that this great enterprise is to be constituted as one undertaking, and that the body that will run that undertaking are to deal with the question of an
adequate and properly co-ordinated system of passenger transport for the London Passenger Transport Area.
Under the Clause that is now before the Committee, we are considering the setting up of a great monopoly

The CHAIRMAN: Really, the hon. Member seems to be struggling very hard to make a, Third Reading speech on a Clause which has already been passed. He cannot do that. The actual wording and purport of this Clause sets out the general duties of the board which has already been set up. The particular powers with regard to the taking over of undertakings come under other undertakings and not under this one.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am very sorry to trespass. I was not seeking to trespass.
I thought that under this Clause we were entitled to consider the general purpose of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: No.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I apologise for my misunderstanding in that respect. Now with regard to Sub-section (4). I understand that the duties of the board are "to fix such fares and charges" as will in any event make it possible for the board to defray all the charges which are by the Act required to be defrayed out of the revenues of the board. This includes, as we shall see in a later Clause, the interest which is to be paid on the various classes of stock, including fluctuation in the rate of interest which may have to be paid on one class of stock. Presumably it will be the duty of the board under Sub-section (4) to fix such charges as will, in any event, enable all the interest to be nail, including standard revenue, on the stock known as Class C. By this Clause we are requiring the board, quite irrespective of whether they have carried on with the efficiency that we should desire, to impose such charges on the travelling public as will ensure that revenues will be raised. I wish to draw attention to the vital importance of this Clause. I very much regret that, through the Rules of Order which you, Sir Dennis, quite properly enforced against me, I am not in a position to indulge in a general argument on this aspect of the Bill in a. way which I thought under this Clause would have been in order.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. LINDSAY: This Clause sets out the general duties and powers of the board as to London passenger transport. There is already in existence, as the Minister is well aware, the Metropolitan Traffic Commission, which has powers under the Act of 1930. Some of us have not had the advantage of hearing a Second Reading Debate on the present Bill, and we are very anxious to know whether the Minister can tell us exactly how this Bill fits in with the existing structure of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. It appears to me to be quite in order to ask for that information on this question. It is extremely difficult to find out exactly how those two things fit in together, and how this Bill affects the existing powers of the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioners.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Before we part from this Clause, I should be very glad if the learned Attorney-General would clear up some difficulties which I have in regard to it. Sub-section (4) says:
It shall be the duty of the board to conduct their undertaking in such manner, and to fix such fares and charges in accordance with the provisions of this Act, as to secure that their revenues shall be sufficient o defray all charges which are by this Act required to be defrayed out of the revenues of the board.
5.53 p.m.
What is the meaning here of "shall be the duty"? Is there to be a statutory duty imposed, a breach of which will be a misdemeanour? I cannot remember the words, but by the Factories Act every owner of a factory has to protect his machinery, and if he does not he has committed a statutory misdemeanour. What is the remedy if this duty is not carried out? Is any mandamus to lie against the board? In other words, are they bound to raise fares, although their better judgment may tell them, as I think in all probability will be the case, that an increase in fares will not bring any increased revenue? As I understand it, the power of dismissal has been taken from the Appointing Trustees to the Minister, and the Minister will have power of dismissal rather limited to inability and misbehaviour. Is he bound to dismiss them if they do not carry out the terms of the exact wording of this Clause? Would that be inability within the meaning of the Clause? I very much doubt it. I have always had the very gravest doubts as to the meaning of those words. I have assumed that they meant that the board were bound to raise fares. I have already had to point out to this Committee on the first Clause of the Bill that, in my opinion, the board means an end of cheap fares in London. The board will most certainly have to raise fares. Before we leave this Clause, I should like the learned Attorney-General to tell us what is really the meaning of these words.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. HOWARD: Before we come to a decision on the Clause, I should like to say a word or two, because I feel that the Clause is a very vital one. By it, we are allowing the board to take over the
whole of the transit facilities in London. We also enable them to take
such steps as they consider necessary for extending and improving the facilities for passenger transport in that area in such manner as to provide most efficiently and conveniently for the needs thereof.
That is all very well, but who is going to decide as to what is a most efficient and convenient method of transport? I can foresee, after the passing of this Bill, that other measures will be devised by the people of London to get to and from their work than those which are provided by the board. There is no doubt that within a short time we shall have the hoard degenerating into the same static condition of inefficiency as has characterised the suburban services of the main line railway companies. The private citizen will be forced, as he has been forced in opposition to the main line railways, to find his own method of transport. I can see very soon the establishment of a new method of co-operatively-owned private motor cars, whereby four or five men living, let us say, in Becontree, will together buy a motor car for less than £100, and arrange to go to the City and back every day, in order to get over the exorbitant fares which the board will undoubtedly charge.
It is all very well to say at the moment that the cost of such a private vehicle is out of the question, but we know that we are on the brink of a new departure in motor transport that is going to reduce running costs by at least 50 per cent. of the present rate. As that reduction takes place, privately-owned vehicles will be co-operatively purchased to take to and from their work the working-men of the near future. Will the board be able to say, "We do not consider that this is a convenient method of transport within the London area and we ban such co-operative efforts as are being made"? I wonder whether hon. Members of the Opposition will shut down the co-operative schemes of the future?
There is another matter. We know that the tremendous growth of clubs is causing some concern even in this House. I can foresee the starting of a club which will be called, the "London Travellers' Club." It will purchase a charabanc that will leave Palmers Green, or Croydon, or any other outlying place, every morning at half past eight. It will pick up 28
passengers, and bring them to the Bank in a private charabanc or coach owned by the club. Will the board be able to say that that privately-owned motor car, even if it is a coach—there is no definition as to the size of a private motor car or of a, motor coach—shall not be allowed to bring in the members of that club'? It is not plying for hire on the streets of London, but it has a registered daily number of passengers who co-operatively own the coach, and it can bring the whole 28, or even more, to business every morning. The liberty of the subject can be interfered with by the board, who can apply to have that vehicle restricted in its use of the streets of London. I can see many other developments in motor transport in the near future, and I am jealous to try and guard the right of the King's highway for British citizens against the power of this would-be monopoly. I hope, therefore, that this Clause will be resisted by Members of the House.

6.1 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: With regard to the criticism of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), I think that no court would have any difficulty in interpreting this Clause in a reasonable way if anybody should seek to attack the board because they had been the victims of fate. For instance, if they had used their best efforts to conduct the undertaking on a self-supporting basis, and it failed, I do not suppose that any court in the world would interpret the words
It shall be the duty of
in such a way as to make them guilty of anything for which they would be answerable in damages or liable to a term of imprisonment. I quite agree that the word "duty" suggests to a lawyer something which can be enforced by the courts, but the Clause merely sets out at length the direction of Parliament to the board that they are to carry on their undertaking on a self-supporting basis.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Would the Attorney-General kindly deal with the other part of my question? Is it compulsory on this board to increase the fares, or is that discretionary also; and if so, does the Clause mean anything?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think it means something. It is a direction to carry on the undertaking on a self-supporting basis. That does not necessarily mean raising fares. Indeed, raising fares may be the worst possible way of carrying on the undertaking on a self-supporting basis. The board are to fix fares, and it may be that they will get more business and more profit by reducing fares than by raising them. My hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol (Mr. Lindsay) asked how this Bill works into the Road Traffic Act. If he will be good enough to turn to Part IV of the Bill, he will find a number of Clauses which I think will answer his question.

Mr. LINDSAY: Not entirely.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: May we deal with that matter when we come to it?

6.4 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM RAY: I should like to say a few words with regard to Subsection (4). We definitely here set up this monopoly Those of us who have been connected with London for some years know that, so far as travelling facilities are concerned, we have in London, if not the cheapest, certainly as cheap a system as any in the world. That cheapness has only been secured in London by keen competition—the competition of tramways with omnibuses, and the competition of the independent omnibuses with the, not monopoly, but the recognised great omnibus services. This Committee must recognise that, from the date of the inception of this board, competition so far as London is concerned is gone for ever. It is a very momentous decision to come to that, after all these years, after all the benefits which have been conferred upon London by a reasonable amount—there has not been an unreasonable amount—of competition, all these things are to come to an end from the moment of the board's inception. There are many of us who believe that some of the advantages which London has gained, such as the 2d. mid-day fare, the 1s. all-day fare, the 6d. fare, and so on, have only been obtained by enterprise on the part of one undertaking or another, and there is no possible guarantee under this Bill that any of the facilities, as regards both fares and accommodation, which have been given to London during the past dozen years or so, will be re-
tained. I think it is rather regrettable that no provision whatever is made for the retention, for some time at all events, of the facilities that have been given to London through the competition that has been brought about. I feel that the new tribunal will have an extremely busy time—the tribunal which has to deal with applications of local authorities in regard to fares and facilities—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I think we had better leave the duties of the tribunal until we reach that point in the Bill.

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Sir W. RAY: The Socialist party appear to think that that is a matter which might be left. I will stick to Subsection (4), and, in sitting down, I should like to congratulate them on their evident anxiety, as shown in the Bill which they framed, for the payment of interest to people who have money in the undertakings.

CLAUSE 4.—(Provisions as to members of board.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, after the word "Minister," to insert the words "after consultation with the Appointing Trustees."
Sub-section (1) of Clause 4 reads:
There shall be paid to the chairman and other members of the board such salaries, or fees, and allowances for expenses as the Minister may determine.
6.8 p.m.
It may be that the Appointing Trustees will require to know what particular status a new member will have upon the board, and for that purpose the Minister, who fixes the salaries, should be required to consult them on the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to insert the words "and with the consent of the Treasury."
6.9 p.m.
I think the purpose of this Amendment is sufficiently clear. As hon. Members will be aware, I am rather concerned as to the future financial prospects of this under-
taking, and desire that there should be every possible opportunity of securing such protection as this provision would afford.

Mr. PYBUS: We have considered this Amendment, and are prepared to accept it.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I am sorry that the Minister is going to accept this Amendment. It is not in itself a matter of very great importance, but, looking at it from the point of view of principle, the interference of the Treasury in business undertakings has not been very happy in the past, and I am surprised at such a proposal coming from the other side of the House. Conservative Members have been agitating with regard to the Post Office, where I think Treasury intervention in the matter of salaries and so on is most unfortunate. I think it is a bad precedent that the Minister should accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 17, after the word "months," to insert the words:
or, in the case of an original member, twelve months.
6.11 p.m.
This Amendment is to enable members of the board who have been appointed originally to have a longer period than six months in which to dispose of their securities. The period which the Clause allows in such cases is considered to be unduly short, and one which might impose some hardship on original members of the board. It is, therefore, proposed to allow such original members a period of 12 months in which to dispose of their holdings of stock or securities in other transport companies in the London area.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I should like the Minister to tell us why he proposes to extend this period. In the ordinary way it should not be a matter of any particular difficulty for the hypothetical members of this board—I call them "hypothetical" because we do not know who they will be until the appointing trustees have come to their decision—in the ordinary way I should not have thought it would have taken them as long as 12 months to
get rid of their securities in these well-known undertakings. It may be, of course, that the Minister anticipates that the members of the board will be such large holders that, if they all sold rapidly, it would depress the price of the. stock just at the time when the board was coming into being. Perhaps he will tell us. I do not know whether I should be in order in raising at this moment the question why they are required to dispose of their transport stock at all—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question can be raised on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. WILLIAMS: I will raise it at that point.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

6.13 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I will now raise the question to which I was just referring, and perhaps the Minister or the Attorney-General will be good enough to give me an answer. In the case of a limited company, it is, of course, customary to ask that any director shall have a minimum holding in the company. Often it is a very small holding, but he must be a shareholder to qualify as a director. In this case the qualification for a member of the board appears to, be that he shall have no interest in the company. I should have thought that it would have been very much to the advantage of the undertaking if the gentlemen engaged in its conduct stood to gain if they were successful in their enterprise, particularly if they were holding "C" stock, the dividend on which may vary according to circumstances. I should be glad to know what was the reason that inspired the Government to prohibit these people from being in a position to take advantage of any share of the profit through their holding of stock.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The short answer is that the House of recent years has always required, so far as I know, people managing public undertakings to divest themselves of any holdings in companies which may possibly cause their interest to conflict with their
duty. I venture to think that that is a sound principle, and the House is not likely to depart from it after all these years.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am very sorry, but the Attorney-General has not answered my question, which relates to the disposal, not of holdings in other companies, but of holdings in the company of which they are the directors. I am referring to the Transport Stock which they may hold, not to stock which they may hold in, say, the Associated Equipment Company, or any company over which they have no direction. I am referring to any stock that they may hold in the actual undertaking of the board, which is entirely different from that referred to by the Attorney-General in his reply.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, the word in the Clause is "company." This undertaking is not a company. It is only their shares in companies that they have to sell.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The Attorney-General will excuse me, but, if he will read on, he will see that a member of the board has to dispose within 12 months, as it now is, of
any transport stock issued under this Act which he may so hold.
If he holds it personally, why should he dispose of it? No element of corruption is introduced by the fact that a man has a financial holding in the business that he is managing. It is essentially desirable that the directors of an undertaking should have an interest, and whether you call them a board or whether they happen to be directors of a limited company does not enter into it. The efficiency of the undertaking would be very much increased if you introduced some definite interest in its financial success instead of leaving it in the position that they would draw their salaries whether they ran the business successfully or unsuccessfully.

6.16 p.m.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: I think the Attorney-General ought to have given a fuller answer to my hon. Friend's point. It is not only a question of parting with any transport stock that he has. The Clause says:
It shall not be lawful for a member of the board to purchase for his own benefit any securities in any such company or any such transport stock.
I cannot understand why a member of the board cannot invest his own money in it. The principle to which the Attorney-General gave utterance is one that I should support to the very full. It is a most beneficial rule, and the object of it is that there shall be no conflict between a person's duty and his interest. But that does not apply here. It is just the other way. I would rather see these gentlemen loaded up with their transport stock. I should be very much obliged if the Attorney-General would give us some better explanation than he has done.

6.18 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Surely the answer to my hon. Friend is that the only people who will know whether the board is going to be successful or unsuccessful in any one year are the board, and this very necessary provision is put in so that the members of it shall not be able to gamble in stock about which they know and no one else knows. After all, class C is going to vary from year to year as to what it is going to pay, and they will know before anyone else what will be the position on the market. It is thoroughly desirable that they should not be owners and should not gamble in the stock.

6.19 p.m.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: My hon. and gallant Friend's explanation fills me with surprise. I had no idea that the undertaking would be conducted, as he seems to suggest, in such a manner that it would be highly speculative and that large changes in the value of the stock might take place. I should be out of order in referring to precautions provided later in the Bill under which the board will be bound to take the public into their confidence. That they should be carrying on this great undertaking in a hole and corner fashion and should at intervals be able to surprise the public by showing either a vast loss or a substantial profit is very surprising. I am certainly inclined to prefer the view as to the real usefulness of those who have to manage the undertaking having a substantial stake in it so that their interest and that of the public may be more combined than would necessarily be the case under
the other arrangement. Perhaps the Attorney-General will look into the matter afresh before Report.

CLAUSE 5.—(Transfer to board of passenger transport undertakings.)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan)—in page 5, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) If the proprietors of any of the undertakings specified in Parts II, III, IV, V, and VI, of the said Schedule consent in writing to the transfer of such undertaking, or any part thereof, to the board, and such consent is certified by the Minister, such undertaking, or such part thereof shall, from the date on which the Minister so certifies, be transferred to and vest in the board, and for the purposes of this Act such date shall be deemed to be the appointed day in reference to any such undertaking.
is out of order.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 28, to leave out from the word "undertaking" to the word "and" in line 33.
This is a purely drafting matter. It is preliminary to an Amendment to be moved later to Clause 80.

Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 7, line 3, after the word "hire," to insert the words:
without the consent of the licensing authority.
This is a drafting Amendment to make the words square with the intentions of the draftsman. The Clause speaks of certain vehicles which are subject to the condition of not plying for hire. That is not quite the correct description of such vehicles under the Road Traffic Act. Some of them are subject to the condition of not plying for hire but there is a qualification even on that. It is a condition that may be waived with the consent of the licensing authority. These words follow exactly the language of the Road Traffic Act, Section 6 (7) (b).

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 7, line 39, after the word "Schedule," insert the words:
(in this Act referred to as 'the Lewis undertaking.')

In line 40, leave out from the word "undertaking" to the end of line 44, and insert instead thereof the words:
including all lands, works, and other property, assets, powers, rights, and privileges held or enjoyed in connection therewith or appertaining thereto and any rights or interests of the undertakers in any other undertaking."—[The Attorney-General.]

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 8, line 12, after the word "shall," to insert the words:
subject to the provisions of this Section.
This Amendment and two following Amendments all go together. They are drafting Amendments. The Lewis undertaking was put into the Sixth Schedule, dealing with undertakings that are taken over by the Select Committee, but they omitted to make a large number of drafting Amendments, which we have to make now.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 8, line 16, leave out "or III," and insert instead thereof "III or VI."

In line 34, after the word "expenditure," insert the words:
on work done, services rendered, goods delivered or land or property acquired before the appointed day.

In line 35, at the end, insert the words:
and any dispute which may arise between the board and any of those councils under this proviso shall, in default of agreement, be determined by an arbitrator to be agreed or to be appointed by the Minister of Health."—[The Attorney-General.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Provisions relating to Associated Equipment Company, Limited.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. REMER: I have an Amendment on the Paper to leave out Sub-section (3).

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have observed the Amendment, but it appeared to me that the matter would be more conveniently raised on the Question, "That the Clause stand part." Accordingly, I did not select it.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. REMER: Under this Sub-section we are providing what is, in effect, a subsidy to the Associated Equipment Company. I have nothing whatever to say about the company, because I know their works very well and they are efficient and well-managed. Having seen most manufacturing works in the country, I should say this is the best equipped and most efficient in the kingdom. This company, which very largely builds the chassis for the London General Omnibus Company, is also in very serious competition with all the other chassis manufacturers for ordinary commercial vehicles. The effect of the Clause in its present form is that the board will have to say to the Associated Equipment Company, "We must either give you a contract for the chassis that are required for the new undertaking or, in default of that, we shall have to pay you compensation for the fact that you do not receive these orders." In my opinion this is thoroughly wrong. The Associated Equipment Company, by their efficiency and knowledge of what is required, will probably be able to secure their proper share of these contracts without any difficulty. People like the Leyland Motors suffer very severe competition from this company. It seems to me to be grossly unfair to give what is in effect a subsidy to enable the company to compete more easily with its competitors. Something, of course, has to be done in reference to the company but I see no reason why the contract referred to in the Clause should not he left out altogether.
I have heard some rather curious stories about this contract. I have been informed that it was only given after the House had given a Second Reading to the Bill. It was only in existence after the Underground Company discovered that this was going to be done. It seems strange to me that compensation should be given for a contract made after the Bill has received its Second Reading. We are entitled to know what the contract is and to ask that it shall be laid on the Table, so that we shall see its terms and what is going to be involved in compensation or extra cost to the board. We are entitled to know the whole facts—when it was made, what it provides for and what is likely to be the cost of it to the board. I hope that we shall be given an
explanation on these points before the Clause is passed.

6.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOOR E-BRABAZON: My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) seems to think that by this Clause we are granting a subsidy to the Combine because of the Associated Equipment Company. If I were to interpret it in my own language, I should look at it as rank robbery, because the whole of the Underground Undertaking must be looked upon as one unit, and the Associated Equipment Company is owned in its entirety by the Combine. It is part of that vast organisation. They repair and make their omnibuses. One must look upon the thing as a whole. You could not buy shares in the Associated Equipment Company; they are all held by the Underground Company. In that connection it is worth while saying to the Committee exactly what occurred. When the various omnibus running companies were combined, it was obvious that the garages would be put into one. They were more or less centralised. Then the War came, and the centralised garage and manufacturing concern owned by the London General Omnibus Company was forced by the Government to become a big manufacturing concern, so much so that it was able to, and did, make more omnibuses and vehicles than could be consumed by the London traffic.
From that moment it was thought better to keep the thing as a separate company, and the Associated Equipment Company was formed, although it was already owned by the Combine. It is true to say that, though competing with the world in vehicles, it is entirely a London General Omnibus Company affair. Being a London General Omnibus Company affair, naturally they had an arrangement whereby the Combine should buy their vehicles from this company. The arrangement was that they should have a contract for 100 years. When this Bill was considered by the Select Committee, they took the view that it was undesirable that the Combine should be linked up with one particular manufacturing entity, and to-day we have discussed more or less that particular view and have come to the same conclusion. To obviate this difficulty an arrangement was made whereby, instead
of the Associated Equipment Company getting compensation on the basis of 100 years, they were to get compensation on the basis of 10 years if the board did not want to use them at all. The arrangement was, that if the board took on the Associated Equipment Company for 10 years, that was to suffice them for compensation, and if they did not want them at all they should pay compensation as if a contract was made for 10 years. It was a very liberal gesture on the part of the London General Omnibus Company, and I cannot help pointing out to my hon. Friend that if he were to delete the Clause it would impose on the board the onus of paying compensation on the basis of 100 years instead of on the basis of 10 years.

Mr. REMER: The point only arises through the fact that I was not allowed to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper to leave out Subsection (3).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: One must consider the Clause in its entirety. To take out one particular Sub-section and absolutely to indulge in robbery of the most disgraceful kind is not, I am sure, the intention of my hon. Friend. That is what would happen if the proposal were carried. I hope that the Clause will be left as it stands. It seems to be equitable and, on the whole, a very generous action on the part of the Combine.

CLAUSE 7.—(Consideration for transfer of undertakings other than local authorities' undertakings.)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There are some manuscript Amendments in page 10, line 32, standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I do not propose to move them.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Sir Kenyon Vaughan-Morgan.

Sir K. VAUGH AN-MORGAN: I do not propose to move the manuscript Amendment which I have handed in, but will leave it until the Report stage.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 11, line 2, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that, where any of the companies specified in Part I of the said Schedule have at any time after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty, and before the appointed day redeemed any debenture stocks of the company, the appropriate reduction calculated on the basis of the said rates of substitution shall be made in the Transport Stock to be issued to the company under this section.
6.35 p.m.
Since the amount of stock to be issued to the Underground companies was settled some of the companies have redeemed part of their debenture stocks. The purpose of the Amendment of ale Government is to secure that the amount of stock issued to the companies shall be reduced by the amount of debenture stock redeemed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 11, line 3, to leave out Sub-section (2).
It might be convenient to the Committee if, at this stage, I made a brief statement regarding the Metropolitan Agreement on this the first of a series of Amendments. Members of the Committee have had an opportunity of becoming familiar with its provisions, which were set out in full in the White Paper I issued last July, and in the carry-over Motion of the London Passenger Transport Bill my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies and I dealt with it. The Metropolitan Railway have never represented themselves as opposed to a comprehensive scheme of unified control of London passenger transport, provided that the terms which concerned their railway recognised its position, and, further, flat the financial terms should be fair and equitable. They remained, however, unsatisfied as the Bill left the Joint Committee, and there seemed no other course but that the acquisition of the railway should be settled on the terms decided by the Arbitration Tribunal set up for the purpose. I was never in doubt that it was essential that the Metropolitan system should be taken over as a whole by the board, and I set about to try to find a solution which would remove certain outstanding objections. The agreement which was arrived at is now before the Committee for approval.
There are two points which I will mention in order to remove any misunderstanding which may be in the minds of
any Members of the Committee. First, it is not an acquisition by compulsion. Compulsory acquisition is repugnant to many Members of the House. This is now removed. Secondly, there is no guarantee given to the Metropolitan Railway shareholders by the board itself. It was obviously impossible for me to agree to undertake to give any guarantee to the ordinary shareholders in the Metropolitan Railway of a minimum rate of interest to be guaranteed by the board. But if the main line railways were prepared to give such guarantee, I could not see any objection to this course. The terms set out in the Agreement were approved by Sir William McLintock after careful and prolonged consideration. They were approved by the Treasury, and the Government submit them as being fair and equitable to the board and to the public. Personally, I am relieved that the expense and time of arbitration proceedings have been avoided, particularly as the board will, in my opinion, need all its energy in the early days to serve the public. I hope that with the text of the agreement before them, and the previous explanations of its terms, the Committee has now a fair view of the arrangement which I unhesitatingly recommend for its endorsement. Finally, I cannot too strongly emphasise what I have already said on more than one occasion, that the guarantee involves no burden whatever on the finances of the board.

6.40 p.m.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I wish to ask the Minister a question in regard to the statement he has just made. If I heard him correctly, he said that the arrangement made with the Metropolitan Railway was free from compulsion and was entirely voluntary on their part. Were the Metropolitan Railway free to stand out from the transport undertaking, or was it simply a question as to whether, in the face of compulsion, they agreed to terms, or, as an alternative, had to submit to arbitration, and in either event had to part with their undertaking?

6.41 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: The best answer which I can give is that the Metropolitan Railway have agreed with us that they will give up their ordinary stock for "C" stock, with a guarantee from the main line railways. They agreed to that course, and
I do not think that it would serve a useful purpose to argue whether they did it under compulsion or not. It was a perfectly free agreement between the parties.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I was only putting a question on the basis of the statement made by the Minister himself, and he has not answered it now.

6.42 p.m.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: As I understand the agreement made with the Metropolitan Railway, the terms are that the Metropolitan Railway stockholders are to receive a guarantee of 3i per cent. for 15 years and a guarantee of 3 per cent. for a further 10 years? As the Minister has told us, it is not to be paid out of the funds of the undertaking but by the four main railways with which the Bill has nothing whatever to do, except that there is a provision in it for a pooling arrangement of the suburban traffic of those stations within the London traffic area which is the subject matter of the Bill. I wish the Minister to tell us what influenced those four main railways to give this bribe to the Metropolitan Railway Company to come into this agreement It is obvious, although the Minister seems to shirk it, that this is an agreement made at the point of a pistol presented at the head of the Metropolitan Railway—"Either you come in or you go to arbitration; you are to be deprived of your property." They made an arrangement which they think is better, or, at any rate, less uncertain than going to arbitration.
It is equally obvious that the Metropolitan Railway, from beginning to end, never wished to come into this undertaking. They did not believe that the dividends and interest would be earned. It seems to me that they have carried out the logic of that view by saying, "We will only come in if, at any rate, we secure these guarantees for the next 25 years." I ask the Minister to tell me whether I am not correct in my surmise, that the only way in which it can possibly be that the main railways should come into this agreement, is that they intend, and see their way, to raise the suburban fares in a very large area affecting a very large number of people. If that is so, I want to know why the Minister of Transport has agreed to this agreement, which can
only have the effect of substantially increasing the fares charged to the suburban traffic.

6.45 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: The more one hears about the matters contained in this Bill the more suspicion seems to be engendered in one's mind that the Committee is not being taken into the fullest confidence with regard to the various measures that have led to the presentation of the Bill. We have the Minister of Transport speaking in terms of pride of the fact that, the Metropolitan Railway undertaking has come in entirely on a free and voluntary basis rather than under compulsion, but at the same time he knows and the Committee know quite well that there are more undertakings coining into this scheme under compulsion than those coming in by voluntary agreement. If he recognises this principle in regard to the Metropolitan undertaking I cannot see how he can refuse to allow the same privileges to those undertakings that are being compelled to come in. However, that does not come under this Clause. I should like to ask how far the Amendment to Schedule 2, page 120, line 29, column 2, leave out £2,953,950 and insert instead thereof £4,753,950 has a bearing on the particular point covered by Sub-section (3) of this Clause. I cannot help feeling that the Committee is not being taken into the fullest confidence and that there is far more behind this matter than the Committee or the country have been informed.

6.47 p.m.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Is not the Minister of Transport going to answer the question that I put? The Committee has a right to know, and I protest strongly against the action of the Minister in sitting there and not giving the Committee the information that we want. I repeat, with all the force I can, that I want to know how it is to the interests of the main line railways to give this guarantee to the Metropolitan Railway for 25 years.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: The hon. and learned Member asks me how it is in the interests of the four main line railways to do a certain thing. The proper place to address that question is to the four main line railways.

HON MEMBERS: No !

Sir H. CAUTLEY: You submit the scheme.

Mr. PYBUS: Subject to the ratification of this House, yes. The hon. and learned Member's argument tends to throw upon the agreement with the Metropolitan Railway a suspicion that something has been done which ought not to be done, something which is going to raise fares in the London area and something which the shareholders of the main line railways if they had their will would not have done. There can be no doubt that it is in the interests of the main line railways that the Metropolitan Railway as a whole should come into the group. It is in the interests of the board and of the economic operation of London transport that the Metropolitan Railway should be part of the undertaking. While it was not possible for me to give the Metropolitan Railway any guarantee of interest it was possible for the main line railways to do so, and in their wisdom they agreed to do it. With that answer, I think the hon. and learned Member must be content.

6.50 p.m.

Sir W. RAY: We have reached a position at last which justifies many of us in opposing the Bill. We have pressed all along that the financial arrangements are unsatisfactory and that if they had gone again to the Select Committee the Bill would not have been approved. We have argued repeatedly that there is a danger to the travelling public of London that they will be compelled to suffer through increased fares or decreased facilities, or both, if this Bill is proceeded with. We are told this evening that the Committee is not to be informed on one matter which is of the deepest interest not only to this House but to the travelling public of the London area. If the Ministry and the Government have given their benediction to this Bill we can presume that they have given that benediction to the agreements upon which the Bill is based, and we have a right to ask, in the interests of the London travelling public, what are the agreements, so that we may know how it is possible for the main line railways to give the guarantee which is now talked about. It is unfair to those who are taking up the attitude that some of us are taking on this Bill that we cannot get the information which is at the root of
the question. Therefore I feel, although the opposition to the Bill has been conducted in a perfectly responsible way by those conducting it, unless the information desired is given to the Committee and to London, any form of opposition might be justified.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: How on earth can the main line railways guarantee the interest to the Metropolitan Railway? We know that the main line railways are very powerful bodies and that they have enormous financial backing but at the present time they are not doing so well that they can afford to guarantee this London traffic. My hon. Friend opposite speaks on behalf of the people of London, but a vast number of people outside have interests in the railway companies and a large number of railway workers are also concerned, and they are in a very difficult position at the present time. Are they, for instance, to guarantee the losses on the London tramways? It is a monstrous thing to come to this House and say that the main line railways are giving this guarantee without any explanation on what it is based, what is the financial justification for it and how the railway companies are in a position to give the guarantee. Why should the main line railways guarantee London passenger traffic? They have sufficient difficulties outside London without giving such a guarantee. I have always thoroughly disliked the way in which certain opposition to the Bill has been withdrawn because it is thought that in some way the main line railways may benefit. I have never been able to make out how that will be. I am not speaking as a railway director or as one with any financial interest in the railways, but I maintain that it is not right that this burden should be placed on the shoulders of the main line railways, because it is vital in the interests of the country that at the present time their full financial resources should be available for the development of the country. I do not see why London should place this burden upon them.

6.54 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Is not the Committee in danger of mistaking the question which alone is for the Committee to consider? The London main line railways as main lines are not compre-
headed in the Bill. The Bill does not touch anything except what for the moment we might call the London passenger transport problem. Let us assume that the Bill covers a certain area in which that problem exists. Outside that area the main lines are absolutely unaffected by the Bill, but the suburban traffic is a problem with which the main lines have always been concerned, at any rate in recent years. Strictly speaking, the suburban traffic is a part of the business of the main line railways. The main lines are really more interested in the through traffic which we generally call main line traffic, but they cannot divest themselves of the suburban traffic. For a number of years arrangements have been made for dealing with the suburban traffic. The present scheme is to include the suburban traffic of the main lines in the settlement which is sought to be made of the chief problem of London passenger transport.
The inclusion of the Metropolitan Railway in this scheme is eminently desirable, as I think everyone will admit. If you are to have a scheme and if you are to try to unify all the services engaged in carrying passengers in the London area you must have the Metropolitan Railway in it, otherwise there would be a hole in the scheme. I am not suggesting that everyone is agreed upon unification, but given the principle of unification, the scheme in this Bill is on the right lines. Given unification, the Committee will agree that the Metropolitan Railway must be brought in, because it is too big a factor in the problem to be left out. The question is, what can be done to induce the Metropolitan Railway to come into the scheme on lines satisfactory to the Metropolitan Railway. It is quite clear—I do not think anyone desires to burk the question—that if the Metropolitan Railway had not been prepared to come in under a friendly arrangement there would have been an assessment by means of arbitration as to the value of their undertaking, which is essential to the whole scheme. Nobody who knows anything about the Bill would ever suppose otherwise.
The question put to the Government is what inducement has led the main line railway companies to give this guarantee to the Metropolitan Railway Company? Is not that a question entirely for the main lines? I think I could answer the
question, and I think every Member of the Committee could answer the question. [Laughter.] My hon. Friends behind me laugh, but they are not doing great credit to their own logic, which is greater than they appear to admit in regard to this problem. They know perfectly well that the main lines are greatly interested in having this traffic problem, including that of the suburban traffic, settled. Stability and coherence is given to the scheme by having the Metropolitan Railway in it, and the main lines, through their directors, without any compulsion, have been perfectly prepared to give this guarantee in consideration of the greater stability and strength that the scheme gets by having the Metropolitan Railway in the scheme on lines which the Metropolitan Railway have agreed to accept. There is no mystery about it. There is nothing being kept back from the Committee, as the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) seemed to suggest. I was sorry to hear him make that suggestion. There is nothing that the Government are trying to keep back. There is nothing that anyone need be puzzled to understand, if they will address their minds to the matter. We were not in a position to direct the main lines to come forward and give the guarantee; they were not included in the Bill. The fact is that the main lines, finding the Bill what it was, were prepared to give the guarantee, which has settled as they think on satisfactory lines this ever-present and difficult problem, with which they have been faced, of the suburban traffic, which interferes with the ordinary operations which are more proper for the business of the main lines. I hope the Committee will be prepared to accept the arrangement that has been made with the Metropolitan Railway Company, which no doubt has been made easier by the guarantee which I am glad to say the main lines are prepared to give to them.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: The explanation of the Attorney-General, to my mind, makes the confusion worse. The Minister in charge of this Bill said that the main lines did guarantee the dividend of the Metropolitan Railway. The Attorney-General says that the main lines have nothing to do with it, except so far as the suburban traffic is concerned. I do not find it specified in the Bill that the main lines are guaranteeing this
dividend, as the Minister tells us. Will he tell me where I can find it? Apparently, he is in some difficulty in finding the place.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member seems to come new to this question. I think I am right in saying that the White Paper which contains the full details of this scheme was circulated last July. I hope the hon. Member will acquit the Government of trying to keep back facts. It was all stated in the White Paper.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I am glad to know that. It does not seem to be widely known in the House. Suppose that the returns of the Combine do not cover the dividends specified, do I understand that the main lines pay the difference? If that is so, there will be no necessity for putting up fares to make up the losses by the Combine.

Mr. PYBUS: If the budget of the Metropolitan Railway produces a dead loss, do they make up that loss? Is that what the hon. Member says?

Mr. SOMERVILLE: If there is a loss on the Combine, and the dividends guaranteed are not paid, do the main lines come in and do it, or do you make it up by increasing the fares?

Mr. PYBUS: The whole of the receipts are put into one pool; then each of the undertakings is allowed to charge up their charges on a certain basis, which is not upon the capital but upon the mileage and ordinary running charges. What is left is then allocated to pay interest on the various stocks.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: In this White Paper, issued in July, there is, in page 4, paragraph (4), the statement:
Interest on the 'Trust' stock issued as above to be guaranteed at the rate of 31 per cent, for 15 years from the appointed day and 3 per cent. for a period of 10 years thereafter. Payment of these rates to be secured by a first charge on the shares of the pooled receipts to which the Amalgamated Railway Companies are entitled under the operation of the pooling scheme set out in the Bill.
Are we to understand that this guarantee lasts for 25 years—15 at 3¼ per cent.?

Mr. PYBUS: If the board are able to pay on this "C" stock 6 per cent. for two consecutive years after 12 years, then the guarantee comes to an end.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. REMER: I think by this time most of the Members of the Committee will be thoroughly confused. We were told by the Minister of Transport that a guarantee was to be given, and then that was denied by the Attorney-General, who said that no guarantee was to be given by the main line railways. Who is giving the guarantee? I understood that this had nothing to do with the main line railways. I may have misunderstood what the Attorney-General said, and I presume that I did misunderstand by the fact that he is shaking his head. This guarantee will be given by the main line railways. The shareholders of the four main line railways are subject to the eventuality of this guarantee being brought into operation. I do submit that this is an added reason why this Bill should not have been debated on the Floor of the House, and should have gone again to a Select Committee which could have called for Papers with all the details of the Bill. I have examined the White Paper which explains certain of the details but by no means makes it clear to the Members of the House, as it would have had to be made clear to the members of a Select Committee. This is an important Bill involving a huge amount of capital and a revolution in the affairs of the country. It should have been scrutinised by a Select Committee in the greatest detail. I add my protest as to the way the Bill has been handled in to-day's Debate.

Amendment agreed to.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 11, line 8, to leave out from the word "issue," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words:
to the company owning the undertaking in such, manner as is provided by this Act the amounts of transport stock which are specified in Part I of the Fourth Schedule to this Act and of the classes therein specified, and the stock so issued shall be distributed among the holders of the existing stocks of the company (other than the 4 per cent. Terminable Debenture Stock) at the
rates of substitution specified in Part II of the said Schedule.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Are we to have no explanation?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This Amendment is pure drafting. We shall come to the whole agreement when we reach the Schedule. It is pure drafting to clear the way for the Schedule consequent upon the agreement with the Metropolitan Railway Company.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I accept the explanation. It is a little more complicated than it looks at first sight. Of course, a very highly-trained legal mind sees it at once,

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Does this refer to the agreement between the Metropolitan Railway and the main lines?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The guarantee between the main lines and the Metropolitan Railway is found in Sub-section (12) of the new Clause on page 181 of the Order Paper. That answers my hon. Friend. It shows that part of the agreement relating to the main line railway companies.

Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 11, line 24, after the word "section," to insert the words:
() the provisions of the Third Schedule to this Act shall have effect in relation to and for the purpose of the distribution of the transport stock issued under the preceding sub-sections of this section.
This is a purely drafting provision.

Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 11, line 26, after the word "shall," to insert the words:
as consideration for the transfer of the Dart of the undertaking transferred to the board.
This Amendment and the next one are drafting Amendments in order to bring this particular Sub-section into conformity with Sub-section (1).

Amendment agreed to.

7.12 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 11, line 27, to leave out from the word "a" to end of the Sub-section and to insert instead thereof the words, "may under the next following Section of this Act be agreed or determined by arbitration."

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is this a drafting Amendment?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I thought I said both of them were drafting Amendments for the same purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 11, line 30, after the word "undertaking," insert the words "or the Lewis undertaking."

In line 32, leave out the word "parts," and insert instead thereof the words "undertaking or the part." — [Mr. Pybus.]

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 11, line 37, to leave out the words "in the case of an independent undertaking," and to insert instead the words:
subject to the provisions of Sub-section () of the said section.
This Amendment must be considered in connection with the fourth Amendment to Clause 8. The hon. Member will see the new paragraph on the Order Paper. They are intended to produce finality as to the election of the undertakings concerned as to whether they will take stock or cash. Clause 8 provides that they,
so soon as may be, shall prepare and submit to the tribunal a scheme setting out the amount and nature of the consideration ….
It is difficult to know whether an undertaking requires as consideration cash or stock. There must be some finality as to election. They are deemed to have elected to take it in cash, if they have not said they wanted it partly or wholly in stock.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: May I ask if it is now arranged that every constituent body coming into this undertaking shall have elected to take cash or stock?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: All, except those with whom agreements have been made. The hon. Member will see that this Amendment is at line 37. It is dealing with the independent undertakings mentioned in Clause 6. These are undertakings with which agreement has not yet been made.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Will they have the option of taking cash or stock?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes, they will have election in a limited time.

Mr. REMER: Does that apply to the firm of Messrs. Tilling?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As I explained Messrs. Tilling wanted transport stock.

Mr. REMER: I have had conversations with Messrs. Tilling and they utterly deny anything of the kind. The only thing they have said is that they want the same return for their shareholders—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment to Clause 14 dealing with that point, and we must wait until we reach that Amendment before discussing the matter.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: The explanation of the Attorney-General makes it somewhat difficult for a layman to follow the matter. He seems to be dealing with a subsequent Clause, and we have to jump backwards and forwards. Can he tell us what proportion of the independent concerns are going to take cash 7 Whether any investigation has been made? And whether provision has been made for a sufficient amount of cash to deal with the matter?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I can assure the hon. Member that ample provision has been made if all the undertakings elect to have their consideration in cash. The Committee, I am sure, would not desire the smaller undertakings to be forced to take stock, and we have assumed that they are going to take cash until we are informed that they are going to take stock. We have made ample provision in the matter.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: And that cash is to be provided by the four great railway companies. In other words, they carry the baby.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I should have to go into a Second Reading speech if I replied to the hon. Member.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Determination, of amount of consideration and terms of transfer of undertakings other than local authorities' or Underground undertakings.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 12, line 5, to leave out from the word "transfer" to the word "but" in line 7.
The first three Amendments to this Clause are purely drafting, consequential on the agreement with the Metropolitan Railway Company.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 13, leave out from the word "consideration" to the word "shall" in line 14.

In line 35, leave out from the word "consideration" to the word "which" in line 36.—[The Attorney-General.]

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 12, line 39, at the end, to insert the words:
() Where in pursuance of the last preceding sub-section the amount and nature of the consideration. payable in respect of the transfer of an independent undertaking, or of the Lewis undertaking, is to be determined by the arbitration tribunal, the undertakers shall for the purposes of sub-section (6) of Section seven of this Act be deemed to have elected to have the consideration paid wholly in cash unless, within such time and in such manner as the arbitration tribunal may direct, they elect to have the consideration paid wholly or partly in transport stock.
This is the Amendment to which I have already drawn the attention of the Committee.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: What is the Lewis undertaking? Why does it have to be mentioned in this Sub-section?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Lewis Omnibus Company is its more official title. It was put in by the Select Committee in the part of the Sixth Schedule which deals with undertakings to be taken over. I am not clear why it was thought necessary to put it in, but it was done by the Select Committee and we are now making the necessary Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 12, line 41, to leave out the
words "Part II or Part IV or Part V," and to insert instead thereof the words "Parts IV, V, and VI."
This is an Amendment in Sub-section (3). We do not want Part II because that is the Metropolitan Railway Company, and we are putting in Part VI because Part VI is the Lewis Undertaking. The Lewis Undertaking is partly owned by the Metropolitan Railway Company and therefore they prefer to come in as an undertaking. That is why they are dealt with separately.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I thank the Attorney-General for his further explanation. I was not sure whether his first explanation was quite complete, but the explanation he has now given relieves my mind a great deal on the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Consideration, for transfer of local authorities' undertakings.)

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 15, line 24, to leave out the word "proportion," and to insert instead thereof the word "portion."
7.21 p.m.
This Amendment and the next two Amendments are necessary in order to cure a defect in the Clause as it stands. The period by reference to which the Sinking Fund contribution is calculated varies according to the nature of the expenditure. Accordingly it would be inaccurate to provide for the Sinking Fund to be divided in the proportion stated in the Clause as printed. The appropriate division is a division by reference to the purpose for which the loan has been applied.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 15, line 25, after the word "as," insert the words "relates to."

In line 28, leave out the words "bears to the loan as a whole."—[Mr. Pybus.]

CLAUSE 10.—(Determination of amount of consideration and terms of transfer in case of local authorities' undertakings.)

Mr. LINDSAY: I beg to move, in page 17, line 3, to leave out the words "Minister of Health" and to insert instead thereof the words "Lord Chancellor."
7.22 p.m.
This Amendment is not put forward to embarrass the Government but because it seems to me to be an improvement on the Clause, which deals with the consideration payable to local authorities on the transfer of an undertaking. Subsection (3) deals with the procedure to he followed after the arbitration tribunal has been wound up and provides that after the arbitration tribunal is wound up the consideration shall be assessed by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Minister of Health. Clause 12 provides for the appointment of the arbitration tribunal by the Lord Chancellor. It is to consist of three members, and any vacancies which arise during the course of its operations are also to be filled by the Lord Chancellor. It is constituted into a Court of Record; it becomes a legal body. It is also expressly provided that the president shall be a man of legal experience. It would make for uniformity if the person who is to discharge the duties of the arbitration tribunal after it has ceased to exist should be appointed by the same person who is to appoint the arbitration tribunal in the first instance, that is the Lord Chancellor. I do not understand why the Minister of Health is brought in at all. This is the only place in the Bill where he is brought in, in all other cases it is the Lord Chancellor.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. LYONS: It occurs to me that as so much of the machinery in the Bill is being taken out of the hands of the Minister for very good reasons, there can be no objection to this appointment being made by the Lord Chancellor. I support the Amendment and I hope the Government will accept it. These appointments will best be made by the head of our judicial system rather than by the Minister, who has been trimmed of many of his powers by the Amendments made to the Bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member has fallen into a little confusion.
This is a question of the Minister of Health not the Minister of Transport.

Mr. LYONS: I am much obliged to the Attorney-General, but I do not think the Minister of Health should make these appointments. I think it should be in the hands of the Lord Chancellor.

7.25 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I quite appreciate the hon. Member's point, but he argued that as we are depriving the Minister of Transport of some of his powers we might as well take them all away.

Mr. LYONS: I am much obliged for the correction. It was an error. The Minister of Transport has had his powers limited by this Bill, but I do not see why another member of the Ministry should have the right of making appointments which should be made by the Lord Chancellor.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is more ingenious than convincing. I quite recognise that the hon. Member is asking for the arbitrator to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The only reason for choosing the Minister of Health is because this Clause deals only with grievances on the part of local authorities; and the Minister of Health deals with local authorities. The matters to be decided by this arbitrator are relatively small, and are those matters which are left over and will not be decided by the arbitration tribunal. It was thought better, as the Minister of Health is more acquainted with questions affecting local authorities, that he should appoint the arbitrator to deal with them. It is not a matter upon which anyone can have any firm or fixed opinion, but in my view it is rather better on the whole to have the Minister of Health.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: What would happen in the event of the Minister of Health being abolished??

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Exactly the same as if the Lord Chancellor were abolished.?

Mr. SOMERVILLE: In this somewhat complicated age the legal fraternity are more necessary than the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Health might be abolished in the interests of economy.
It would be as well to put in some alternative.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I think it would be better to have the Lord Chancellor making these appointments rather than the Minister of Health. I do not like the idea of putting these extra duties on Ministers of the Crown, because they are rather apt to extend them. The Lord Chancellor, however, occupies a special place which enables him to make these appointments. After the very excellent speech from the Mover of the Amendment I thought that perhaps the Attorney-General might graciously accept the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. LINDSAY: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I should like to ask the Attorney-General one question before we pass the Clause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot quite hear my hon. and learned Friend.

7.29 p.m.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: The question I want to put is this. Does Clause 10 provide that every agreement between the board and a local authority is to go to arbitration? That is the way I read it. If so, does that mean that the agreements with the three authorities mentioned in the Fourth Schedule have not to go to arbitration 7 If the learned Attorney-General will look at page 129 of the Bill he will see it stated that:
The amount and class of transport stock to be issued to the local authorities certified in this Schedule shall be as follows:
That looks as if it was definite. My recollection is that those three county councils did come to terms.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: How is that reconcilable with Clause 10? Why are those three county councils' agreements exempted when we know that arrangements have been made with others, the London County Council, for instance? Another question is, with how many local authorities have agreements been made?

7.31 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. and learned Friend will observe that the local authorities mentioned in the Fourth Schedule do not come within the purview of the arbitration under Clause 10, but other agreements have to be confirmed by the arbitration tribunal before they are to have effect, and the tribunal may confirm them with or without amendment. My hon. and learned Friend asked another question which at the moment I am unable to answer. I am told that the three local authorities mentioned in the Fourth Schedule have come to agreements. With regard to the others agreements still remain to be made, or else arbitration will have to take place.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Although other agreements have to be made they have to go to arbitration?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If and when agreements are made they will have to go to arbitration to be confirmed.

CLAUSE 11.—(Payments on account to be made by the board.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 17, line 24, to leave out paragraph (b).
This Amendment is consequential upon the settlement with the Metropolitan Railway Company. That was the only company, other than those of the Underground group, whose undertaking was acquired on the basis of an exchange of stock.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Constitution and procedure of arbitration tribunal.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 18, line 5, after the word "to," to insert the words:
in Sub-section (3) of Section ten or.
There are arrangements in the Bill for an arbitration tribunal, but it is thought unnecessary to keep the arbitration tribunal alive for all purposes, and Subsection (3) of Clause 10 provides for any dispute between the Board and the local authority being settled either by the arbitration tribunal or, if that is dissolved,
by an ad hoc arbitrator. This Amendment is to add words in order to bring in the class of dispute which is mentioned in Sub-section (3) of Clause 10.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I beg to move, in page 19, line 17, after the word "may," to insert the words:
and on the application of any person or class of persons aggrieved by an a. aid shall.
7.36 p.m.
The purpose of this Amendment is clear. It is to give the opportunities of appeal to any body of persons who may be adversely affected. Throughout the Bill we desire to give the public not only as much information as possible, but also as much opportunity as possible of presenting their case and learning their position.

7.37 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I hope my hon. Friend will agree that these words need not be added to the Clause. The form of Clause 10 is an amalgamation of two Sections of the Arbitration Act, which is familiar to all lawyers. They are Sections 7 and 19. Section 7 is that which requires an arbitrator to state his award in the form of a special case, or allows him to state it so, that is to say at the end of the hearing. Section 19 allows him, at the request of either of the parties, to propound a question of law which has been raised, for a decision by the High Court. If a party wants such a question asked the arbitrator most give that party an opportunity of going to the courts for an order to the arbitrator to state this question for the information of the court. We have put into this Clause both those processes. We have suggested that the arbitration tribunal shall have power to state their award for a special case. The Amendment is to allow the arbitration tribunal to state their award in the form of a special case. I think that that is unnecessary because of the compulsory effect of the latter part of the Clause, which says that the arbitrator shall state the point that arises in the course of the case if the Court of Appeal order him to do so. The provision in the Clause is the same in substance as the Amendment. The procedure in the Bill will introduce economy and cheapness. This House is always complaining of the dear-
ness of litigation. The object of the Clause is to reduce as far as possible the cost of these arbitration proceedings. The Amendment would add nothing to the effect of the Clause and might add to the cost of legal proceedings.

7.40 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I agree entirely with the Attorney-General. What the Amendment asks is that on the application of any person aggrieved by an award the arbitrator shall then state the award. But he has already done it before the person is aggrieved, and he cannot do it again. Really these words would not mean anything if they were inserted.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I would thank the learned Attorney-General for his explanation. One is always at a disadvantage, as a layman, in these legal technicalities. My only purpose was to give the public the maximum opportunity at the minimum of cost. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment made: In page 19, line 19, after the word "may," insert the words:
at any stage of the proceedings."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 (Staff and expenses of tribunal) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 14.—(Rules to be applied in, determining compensation.)

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 21, to leave out lines 4 to 27, and to insert instead thereof the words:
having regard in particular to—

(i) the average net profits earned by the undertaking or the part of the undertaking, as the case may be, for the three financial years last preceding the date of the passing of this Act, after meeting all proper charges, including adequate provision for the replacement or renewal of all assets subject to depreciation or obsolescence; and
(ii) the probability, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case and the nature of the undertaking, that those profits would have continued to be earned by the undertaking or the part of the undertaking, as the case may be, if this Act had not passed; and
(iii) the amount of any direct pecuniary loss arising to the undertakers by reason
1324
of any liability or obligation attaching to them in connection with the part of an undertaking being a liability or obligation which was reasonably assumed before the appointed day by the undertakers in the ordinary course of their business as such, and which the Board on being required so to do by the undertakers refused to take over."
7.42 p.m.
This Amendment is designed to put back into the Bill the Clause dealing with compensation which was originally there. The present Clause, which consists of nine Sub-sections, proposes to lay down the considerations which the arbitration tribunal are to take into account in determining the compensation to be paid by the board on the transfer of certain undertakings, the largest of course being the independent omnibus undertakings which appear in the Schedule, for which compensation has not yet been assessed, and not including the local authority undertakings which have already been dealt with under another Clause. In the determination of compensation, which is always a difficult task, it is absolutely essential that the considerations should either be left wholly at large, for the tribunal itself to decide what are the material factors, or that some perfectly precise guide should be given to them as to what matters they should consider. What we complain about in the present Clause, and in Subsections (2) and (3), is that it is laying down a very vague task for the arbitration tribunal, and one which really is quite incapable of being carried out in any circumstances. Sub-section (1) says that the tribunal "shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, determine the value of such undertaking," and award a consideration equivalent to that value. Sub-section (2) starts with the words "The arbitration tribunal shall endeavour to secure." I do not think that the Attorney-General has ever seen in any Act of Parliament a statement that an arbitration tribunal "shall endeavour to secure" something. They have to decide matters and give determinations. But when one starts with the words "shall endeavour to secure," it shows that what is going to follow is something rather vague and probably something which cannot be obtained. What they have to "endeavour to secure," is
that the standard of consideration payable in respect of the several undertakings and parts of undertakings transferred by this Act…shall be fair and equitable as between the several owners thereof.
I have not been able to appreciate what is meant by the "standard of consideration." Those words are very difficult to interpret and they are words which will have to be interpreted the very first time any matters arise as regards compensation for the Arbitration Tribunal to decide. The Sub-section goes on to say:
in order to secure that result (the tribunal) may, amongst the circumstances to Which they have regard in determining the value of any of the undertakings mentioned in Sub-section (1) …. have regard to the nature and value and the consideration paid for the transfer of any other undertaking or part of an undertaking …transferred by this Act, whether that consideration is fixed by this Act or by agreement under this Act.
What I understand that passage to mean is that if the arbitrator is trying to fix the sum which John Jones is to be paid for his independent omnibus undertaking, they have to look, among other things, to what the Metropolitan Railway Company got for that railway and try to make some standard applicable both to the Metropolitan Railway and to an undertaking which may consist of a couple of omnibuses. That obviously is something of which the tribunal would be quite incapable. No tribunal could possibly do that. It is not to take into account the value of similar undertakings or undertakings of a similar type or anything of that sort. It is "any other undertaking" which has been transferred. Sub-section (3) sets out that:
Where the arbitration tribunal are satisfied that in settling the consideration payable in respect of the transfer of any such other undertaking or part of an undertaking… any factor has been taken into account which is relevant to the case pending before them, they shall …take such factor into account and shall in respect of that factor make their award on a similar basis.
That provision opens up the whole of the negotiations with regard to the acquisition of other undertakings. Let us again take the example of the Metropolitan Railway Company. Every single matter mentioned between the negotiators in that case is opened up by this Subsection. One could ask, "Did not the chairman of the Metropolitan Railway
put forward such-and-such a contention, and was not that one of the matters weighed in arriving at this settlement?" If he did so, then the tribunal in making their award have to take into account that factor whatever it may be, and have in respect of that factor "to make their award on a similar basis." It is not a similar basis to that upon which the settlement of the sum was arrived at but it is a similar basis in relation to the consideration given to the matter in the course of the negotiations. Whether that is desirable or not, I am not at the moment discussing, but I am suggesting that to put such a Sub-section before an arbitration tribunal is trying them very high indeed. It is setting them an immensely difficult task.
If you are going to impose such a task on the tribunal, you must define it with the greatest precision unless you are going to court applications to the Court of Appeal in every case, on the interpretation of these two Sub-sections. We propose to substitute for these vague Subsections a precise method which, we believe, is perfectly fair and which lays down a basis upon which calculation of the value of these undertakings can be made by the Arbitration Tribunal. The introductory words in the Clause are that the tribunal shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, and the first part of our proposal is that they shall have regard, in particular, to the average net profits earned by the undertaking or the part of the undertaking for the three preceding financial years, which is a common basis of compensation in such matters. The second matter to which we suggest that they shall have regard in particular, is the probability, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case and the nature of the undertaking, that those profits would continue to be earned by the undertakings. That is a very common consideration in compensation cases. The third part of our proposal is that the tribunal shall have regard to the amount of any direct pecuniary loss arising to the undertakers by reason of any liability or obligation attaching to them in connection with the undertaking—that is to say financial commitments into which they have definitely entered and which the board has refused to take over.
These three proposals in our Amendment set out three clear, definite and fair grounds to form the basis of the compensation which is to be paid to these undertakings, but we press upon the Attorney-General that whether he agrees that these three particular factors are the right factors or not, there ought to be inserted some precise words rather than the vague generalities of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of the Clause as they stand. These simply say that you are to try to find out everything mentioned in the negotiations in any case that has been concluded, either before or after the passing of the Act, and having done that you must try to assess compensation, if you can, on the same sort of basis. For the sake of avoiding expensive litigation we ask the Attorney-General in mercy both to the undertakers whose businesses are being acquired and the Transport Board to make a more definite basis upon which the arbitration tribunal can work.

7.53 p.m.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: This, I understand, is a Clause which was subjected to a great deal of criticism in another place when the question of carrying over this Bill was under consideration. I think it was said then that the Clause was only partially intelligible, and that it had been constructed under considerable pressure and with great difficulty. May I ask the Attorney-General if I am correct in reading this Clause as an attempt to constitute what may be described as a kind of yard-stick, and in saying that the value assessed as the value of a certain undertaking is to be utilised as a measuring instrument of compensation in all the other cases to be determined? If that be the case, is there not a serious risk, if too high a value is placed upon undertaking No. 1, that all the other undertakings, numerous as they are, will be similarly assessed at too high a value? In such an event the difficulty of the Transport Board's task to make the new undertaking operate successfully must be largely increased. On the other hand, in the unlikely event of too low a value being put on one undertaking, it would result in the other undertakings receiving less than their fair valuation. In those circumstances a simpler procedure than that proposed here would
seem desirable. Perhaps the Attorney-General will deal with that point.

7.55 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think anybody who has ever essayed the task of laying down the principles which are to guide a tribunal has found that it cannot be done without difficulty. I remember when the House of Commons attempted the task of laying down the principles upon which the tribunal for dealing with claims for War losses compensation was to arrive at its findings. The ascertainment of the standard revenue of the railway companies was another example of an attempt by Parliament of that kind. As regards the War Losses Compensation Tribunal the principles laid down by Parliament were much criticised in the courts, and were said to be very difficult to understand, but the comparative fewness of the appeals from that tribunal justified the efforts of Parliament to lay down guiding principles in what were novel circumstances.
In this case if one looks at the Clause as it stands one is apt to say that it is difficult to understand, that it is unintelligible, or that it will be difficult to apply. I am more sanguine about it, however, than the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I think that the Clause when examined will be found to lay down, perhaps in rather formal language, precisely that which the tribunal, without any direction from Parliament, would try to do. Let us assume that we are sitting upon such a tribunal. We should first desire to fix an amount which would give proper compensation to the person whose undertaking was being taken, that is to say, to see that that person got value for his undertaking. Our next effort would most certainly be to guide our assessment in the case of B, by the principles, so far as we still thought them good principles, applied in the case of A. That is to say, we should not give B a larger number of years' purchase than A, if the two undertakings were precisely similar. In other words, we should try to arrive at an award which would be equitable as between all the different parties. Everybody agrees that it would be unfair to give a preference to A over B or B over A. The idea in everybody's mind would be to give compensation which was equitable to all those making claims.
Then, I think, in trying to discharge that duty the Tribunal would be faced from time to time with this question. Somebody would say, "This undertaking has such and such a feature." The Tribunal would very likely say—if the facts justified it—" That feature was present in another case and we dealt with it in a certain way. We had better deal with that feature in this case, as we dealt with it in the other case—indeed in common fairness we ought to do so." I think that that would be the way in which any of us would approach this question. Now let as see what the Clause proposes:
The arbitration tribunal shall endeavour to secure that the standard of consideration payable
shall be fair. "The standard of consideration," the hon. and learned Gentleman says, is a novel expression. It may be novel—I do not remember it occurring elsewhere—but I think "the standard of consideration" merely means the rate or the range of consideration; it means the figure in the scale to which consideration to be given. The consideration payable is, in other words, what a layman would call the sum or compensation. The Sub-section says:
The arbitration tribunal shall endeavour to secure that the standard of consideration"—
Let me paraphrase that by saying "the compensation payable."

Sir S. CRIPPS: Then we do not want the words "the standard of."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think you do want the word "standard," because you are going on to the words afterwards which deal with two, three, or more comparable cases. Therefore, you want the word "standard," so as to show that you have what my hon. Friend behind me called a yardstick, some measure which you will be able to take and apply from one case to another. I think the word "standard" does import something into the Clause. It goes on to say that
the standard of consideration ….shall be fair.
We all agree with that. It has to give a man what is fair, and no more than is fair. Then it goes on:
and equitable as between the several owners thereof.
We must all agree, as I have already suggested, that one omnibus company is not to be preferred to another. The Clause goes on to say, in Sub-section (3), that any factor which has been taken into account in the case of one arbitration shall be taken into account similarly in another arbitration. Is not that doing exactly what any of us would do? If we had a whole range of arbitrations to conduct, we should probably say, if we were fair-minded and actuated by common sense, "I have dealt with such and such a factor in this way, and I shall apply the same considerations to the present case."

Sir S. CRIPPS: Surely it applies to such things as the Underground agreement, the Metropolitan agreement, the Hertfordshire agreement, and so on, with which the Arbitration Tribunal have had nothing to do

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Certainly; I think that the suggestions which I have been laying before the Committee are equally good as applied to agreements already arrived at and embodied in the Bill, because the idea over the whole range of these settlements, whether compulsory, statutory, by agreement, or by arbitration, is that they are to be as nearly as can be equitable between all the parties concerned; that it is to say, that if the tribunal finds, by examining the documents and the facts, as they have power to do under Sub-section (4), that some agreement embodied in the Act has been arrived at by a particular route, they shall follow that same route in arriving at a fair and equitable sum in the case of the arbitrations entrusted to them. I fully accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says as to the arrangements which are taken over on terms embodied in the Bill. The factors in those settlements are to be imported into—or that is the wrong way of putting it. It is not the factors to be imported, but the use made of the factors is to be taken from one agreement and put into another settlement of a claim.
The Amendment which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes is the Clause as it appeared in the previous Bill, and it was not a Clause that the Select Committee thought satisfactory. I am not for a moment asking this Committee to be bound hand and foot by the decisions of
the Select Committee. This Committee is in a position to take its own line, but it has the advantage of all the consideration given to this question by the Select Committee, which did not find the Clause in the previous Bill satisfactory. They invited everybody to have a hand at making a satisfactory Clause. Very eminent counsel tried their hands at it, and the most eminent people in this line of country worked away at it, but none of them could agree upon what they thought was a proper Clause, and the Select Committee, therefore, produced the Clause in the Bill. The first proposal in the Amendment is to take
the average net profits earned by the undertaking …for the three financial years last preceding the date of the passing of this Act.
If that were adopted, it would immediately offend against one of the principles that I have already tried to state, namely, that everybody should be treated equally, because those three financial years are not the three years upon the basis of which the Underground undertaking has been compensated. Therefore, you immediately get inequity instead of equity as between the Underground undertaking and those that come to be settled afterwards.

Mr. ATTLEE: As the arbitration is to be founded on a variety of agreements, were all the agreements embodied in this Bill for the same period of years and the same basis, because if not, that argument applies as much to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Clause as to our Amendment?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The agreements that have been made, I am informed—and I can only repeat to the Committee what I have been informed—have been arrived at on the basis of three years or periods which would not be the periods mentioned in the Amendment. The Amendment takes the three years preceding the passing of the Act, and they would be 1929, 1930, and 1931, but these agreements were arrived at for the most part early in this year. Therefore, 1931 has not been a factor. Therefore, paragraph (i) of the Amendment would not allow the result to be produced which we aim at in the Clause as it is in the Bill. Paragraph (ii), of course, is based upon paragraph (i),
because it says that the tribunal is to take into consideration the probability of the profits being maintained as if the Act had not passed. Having arrived at the profits for the three years mentioned in paragraph (i), the hon. and learned Gentleman wants the tribunal to say what are the chances of those profits being maintained at that rate for the years to come. The two paragraphs hang together. The hon. and learned Gentleman might say that paragraph (ii) would, in his judgment, be the right way of approaching the question, even if paragraph (i) is not to be taken.

Sir S. CRIPPS: We should be prepared to have the three years the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, namely, the years taken in the other agreements.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Gentleman says he would be quite prepared to take the three years 1928, 1929, and 1930. That, of course, makes a considerable difference in the criticisms of his Amendment which I should make, but, broadly speaking, my criticism of paragraphs (i) and (ii) of his Amendment, which are merely the Bill as it originally stood, is that they do not direct the tribunal to do that which I think the tribunal ought to aim at first of all, namely, fair compensation and equitable as between all the parties. I can quite conceive that it would be a monstrous injustice, unless equity between all the parties required it, to compel one of these undertakings to have three particular years chosen as the years governing their compensation, and I think I can make this point clear by reference to the Excess Profits Duty. The amount of duty which the undertaking was liable to pay depended upon the years which were taken for the purposes of comparison. An omnibus undertaking might have been only a budding undertaking in one of the years in question and it would be wrong to take those three particular years. If you put in a direction of this sort, the tribunal would be bound hand and foot and would have no choice but to take the three years, even though they would be thoroughly unrepresentative, and probably only the last of the three years would be typical of the success or otherwise of the undertaking in question. I think it is better to give the tribunal a direction that they are to give fair com-
pensation and equitable as between all the parties concerned.
If it be said that our words are vague, so they are, in a way, but we know that these arbitration tribunals and the gentlemen who are likely to be appointed are very familiar with assessing compensation. The principles of compensation, broadly speaking, are very well laid down. Nobody knows that better than the hon. and learned gentleman opposite, and I believe he could tell me out of his head at this moment more about the principles of compensation than I have ever dreamed of. But after considering it, I prefer the Clause as drawn up by the Select Committee. When it comes to paragraph (iii) of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, he really is trying there to do over again something that is dealt with in Sub-section (6) of this Clause, in paragraph (a), where there is a direction that the arbitration tribunal is to consider the effect of severance or separation between that part of the undertaking that has not been transferred to the board and that part which has been transferred. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment would cover the same ground. It would cause great confusion, and if he will look at them, I think he will agree that you cannot really read the two directions together without completely mystifying the tribunal.
My last word is this: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that our Clause begins with a curious expression:
The arbitration tribunal shall endeavour to secure.
When we put words in another Clause to the effect that somebody's duty was to do something, the hon. and learned Gentleman said, "It is very hard to impose a duty on somebody when it cannot be enforced by the courts." When we use an expression of this sort, that the tribunal "shall endeavour to secure," the hon. and learned Gentleman says, "That is very vague." Both criticisms are—

Sir S. CRIPPS: Right.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: They cannot both be right. One of the two may be right. I think the arbitration tribunal ought to "endeavour to secure," and I am for putting in ordinary straightforward language that which the tribunal is to set its hand to, namely, an
attempt to secure fairness and equity. Why not say so in straightforward English for once?

Sir S. CRIPPS: Not in this Clause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to want terms of art, as the lawyers say.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I will accept that, if that is all that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants; I do not mind that. It is what follows that I object to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I can only deal with one thing at a time. As far as the words "shall endeavour to secure" are concerned, there is no objection to them in themselves. I have tried to deal with what follows. Let me say in all candour that I do not regard this Clause as perfect. I have not anything in my mind that I can suggest to the Committee as being perfect. I am not so bold as to think that I can do what the Select Committee, with very skilled draftsmen at its disposal, were unable to do. The hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) was a, member of the committee, and I do not know how far his skill can be moved to suggest a better Clause. On the whole, however, I commend it to the Committee as the most workmanlike, the most straightforward, and the most common sense direction which the Committee would desire to give to the arbitration tribunal which will have to make awards in a most complicated and long series of claims.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: After hearing the Attorney-General's argument both in regard to the Clause in the Bill and the paragraphs suggested by us, it appears that the real logic of his argument is that we should not have Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3). What he really said was that these matters are very difficult and that what we have actually to rely on is the experienced arbitrators who understand this kind of thing, and that, if we give them a general direction that they are to award what is fair and equitable, they will be all right. I think that that is perhaps the logical position for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to take up. His defence of Sub-section (2) was, to say the least, not very enthusiastic. He semed to mix up decision on principles, decision by comparison of factors
and decision by comparison of results. What the Bill says in these Sub-sections is that the arbitrators are to have regard in determining value to. a variety of precedents. This Bill, as I understand it, is founded on a large number of separate agreements. The arbitration tribunal have, somehow or other, to make their awards for several undertakings and to bring out some sort of comparable result to what has already been agreed on with other undertakings. The first thing then is to have a variety of models to select from.
I have only just learned from the Attorney-General that, as a matter of fact, a definite period of years has been taken. When we proposed a period of years, the right hon. and learned Gentleman first of all suggested that our period was wrong because it was not the same period as that on which the agreements were founded. When we told him we were willing to take those three years, he said that that would be wrong because to apply the same three years to different undertakings might have different results according to how long an undertaking has been running, and that in that case it would be wrong to take any particular one of the agreements that have been made because they have been made on a three-year basis and that the three-year basis is often very unfair. The result is that the arbitrators, and also the Counsel who appear before them, will have a large variety of precedents, and the Arbitration Tribunal will be in the position of selecting their authority in accordance with the award they want to give. It is a very convenient practice. It occurs in India where the various pundits have laid down contradictory propositions, so that you first of all decide the justice of a case and then select the particular precedent you want on which to found it. Precisely the same thing can be done by the arbitrators under this Clause.
The extraordinary thing is that there is no consideration of the application of certain principles. The arbitrators have to apply the factors that went to make the agreements. How are they to find out what were the factors that went to make these agreements? Agreements have been made that such and such shall be the compensation to such and such undertakings. How can you evaluate the
persuasiveness of Mr. Morrison or his officials, or the complacence of Lord Ash-field or someone else? I do not know how you can evaluate these factors and supply them to the arbitrators. I do not know whether they are to have before them all the people who took part in these negotiations. Are they going through all the elaborate documents and correspondence to find out what the factors were? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said at one time that it was not a matter of factors, but Sub-section (3) says clearly that they have to take such factors into account. The question is: Are they relevant or not? I do not see how you can get an exact relevance between two matters, one of which has been the subject 'of friendly negotiations, the other of which is the subject of arbitration. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's main point was that you must have justice and equity through the various undertakings. We all want that, and I cannot understand how the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that he gets it. This arrangement, it seems to me, will open the widest field for different awards because of the various factors and considerations that are to be taken into account.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman criticised our proposal, but it is at least one that can be understood by everybody. The average net profits is a very clear factor. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that that may be very unjust, for the average net profit of something that has been running full blast for three years is one thing, and the average net profit for something which has only just been started is another, and if it is based on that it will be unfair. We recognise that, and therefore the average net profit is modified by paragraph (ii), in which the circumstances of the case are to be taken into consideration, and also the probability of the profits continuing to be gained. I seriously suggest that to tell the arbitration tribunal that they have to try and judge by a series of results and a varying amount of factors is not as satisfactory as saying to them, "You shall do justice and equity between these various people, and you shall take into account certain principles, and these are the principles." The principles are given. Generally, the average net profit is the
basis of all the agreements that have been come to, together with the probability of future profits, but both these considerations are subject to the overriding consideration of being just and fair between the various undertakings. If I were an arbitrator I should think that that gave me a much better line on which to go than the Clause as it stands in the Bill.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that paragraph (iii) in our Amendment has already been dealt with in Sub-section (6). That relates to a Tilling or an independent undertaking; I do not know whether it applies to a Lewis undertaking, but that, as I read it, is simply a question of compensation for severance, and our paragraph (iii) is not purely a matter of severance. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that that is entirely covered by Sub-section (6), we are satisfied. I suggest seriously that unless the right hon. Gentleman can put up a better defence than to say it is the sort of thing about which nobody could agree, about which no lawyers could agree, and that therefore the Select Committee made up this plan and we had better take it, he would be well advised to accept our Amendment, and between now and Report stage try to lick it into shape, if he thinks it needs licking into shape, or frankly admit that it is impossible to lay down any definite terms and cut out both Sub-sections (2) and (3) and simply leave it to the arbitrators to do right having regard to the circumstances of the case.

8.26 p.m.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: This Clause gave very great difficulty to the Joint Committee. We had before us the trains, the tubes and the independent omnibuses, all varying in their foundation, in the conditions on which they had been carried on, and the number of years they had been going. There were some 200 undertakings; many of them had been dismembered and parts added to larger undertakings, and other parts left out. Some of them had been started quite recently, others had been going for years and were practically worn out. All kinds of undertakings had to be dealt with. On top of that—and this was perhaps the greatest difficulty of all—we were presented with an arrangement made by the
Underground undertakings on no basis of principle whatever, so far as we could discover, and during the course of the hearing we received notice from time to time of various other settlements made with local authorities or other bodies. I cannot charge my memory exactly, but as far as I can recollect nobody was satisfied with the Clause as it then appeared in the Bill.
What everybody wanted to make sure of was that they would get as good terms as those with whom settlements had been made. Two years before I had been chairman of a Select Committee of this House dealing with Bills from the London County Council and Lord Ash-field's company which were intended to bring about a voluntary arrangement. In that case we had inserted a provision that nobody who came in later should receive worse terms than those who had first come in, and it was suggested in this case nobody who came in later should receive worse terms than Lord Ashfield's company. If that had been agreeable it might have met the difficulty, but it proved not to be agreeable. One of the further reasons why the Clause had to be drafted as it is is that we never could get the amount of compensation paid to Lord Ashfield's company dissected. We never knew how much had been paid for the omnibuses, how much for the tubes and how much for the buildings, and it is in consequence of that that we find in the Clause that the Underground undertakings are to be treated as one. The local authorities' undertakings are separated in this arbitration because their terms varied—the terms on which they got their money, the length of time they had been running, the amount paid off and the way in which repayments are dealt with. For instance, the London County Council carries on its business in a totally different way from any of the other local authorities.
Under such conditions, what could the Joint Committee do I The Clause in the Bill was admittedly no use, and we set to work, with the counsel who were giving attention to this matter, to try to devise a Clause that would meet the general view. Counsel did succeed to a very considerable extent, but they could not succeed completely, and the Clause was finally settled by the Committee. What we aimed at—and I venture to say
the Clause does it—was to leave it open to the arbitrator to take into account settlements already made as far as he can get to know them, and to apply those terms to the other settlements which will come before him. I submit that that is

as near to fair play and equity as it was possible to get under the circumstances.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 19, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 30.

Division No. 15.]
AYES.
[8.33 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Goff, Sir Park
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Gower, Sir Robert
Moreing, Adrian C.


Apsley, Lord
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morrison, William Shephard


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Graves, Marjorie
Moss, Captain H. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Bateman, A. L.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Grimston, R. V.
Pearson, William G.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Penny, Sir George


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th, C.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Petherick, M.


Blindell, James
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Borodale, Viscount
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Potter, John


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brass, Captain Sir William
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Pybus, Percy John


Briant, Frank
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Rankin, Robert


Burqin. Dr. Edward Leslie
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Rathbone, Eleanor


Burnett, John George
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Hay, Sir William


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hornby, Frank
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Horobin, Ian M.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Campbell. Rear-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S,


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Robinson, John Roland


Cezalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Chalmers, John Rutherford
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Rosbotham, S. T.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Janner, Barnett
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Clarry, Reginald George
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Salmon, Major Isidore


Colman. N. C. D.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Salt, Edward W.


Conant, R. J. E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cook, Thomas A.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Cooke, Douglas
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Copeland. Ida
Ker, J. Campbell
Scone, Lord


Cranborne, Viscount
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Crossley, A. C.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Slater, John


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Law. Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Leckie, J. A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lewis, Oswald
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Dickie, John p.
Liddall, Walter S.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Drewe, Cedric
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J,


Duggan, Hubert John
Liewellin, Major John J.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Stones, James


Eales, John Frederick
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Storey, Samuel


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Strauss, Edward A.


Elmley, Viscount
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Summersby, Charles H.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
MacAndrew. Lt.-Cot. C. G. (Partick)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McKie, John Hamilton
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Thompson, Luke


Fleminn, Edward Lascelles
McLean, Major Alan
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Maitland, Adam
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Fraser, Captain Ian
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Ganzoni, Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Train, John


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Vaughan-M organ, Sir Kenyon


Glossop, C. W. H.
Martin, Thomas B.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Wills, Wilfrid D.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Wragg, Herbert


Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Wells, Sydney Richard
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl



Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Withers, Sir John James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Mr. Womersley and Dr. Morris-Jones.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Thorne, William James


Cove, William G.
Hicks, Ernest George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George



Dagger, George
Lawson, John James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Mr. John and Mr. C. Macdonald.


Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: I beg to move, in page 21, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that in the case of a Tilling undertaking the consideration payable to the undertakers shall not be less than such an amount of Transport Stock as will produce in respect of any year in respect whereof interest shall be paid on London Transport Stock at the standard rate income equal to the average annual net profits of the undertakers from the undertaking or part of an undertaking transferred for the three completed financial years ended the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty.
8.41 p.m.
I should like to say that I have no interest in Messrs. Tilling or in any of the other undertakings which will be affected by this Bill. I wish to call attention first of all to the statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General in the Debate on Tuesday last, in which he said:
Messrs. Tilling have expressed the desire to receive transport stock and not cash, the amount of the stock to be settled by the arbitration tribunal. I was going to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that Messrs. Tilling, one of the best-managed transport undertakings in London and in the country, are, at any rate, a little more confident as to the interest-earning character of the transport stock than some hon. Members of this Committee, because they prefer, not sovereigns or pounds but transport stock as the price of their undertaking."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1932; col. 733, Vol. 272.]
I am quite sure that there was no intention that it should be so, but this statement is misleading. The learned Attorney-General never meant it to be so, but as a, matter of fact, it is misleading. What Messrs. Tilling asked for, and what I am asking now on their behalf, is that they should be treated
in exactly the same way as the Underground group has been treated. They have no option but to accept stock, and that is the fact which puts a slightly different complexion to what was put upon the matter by the Attorney-General.
Messrs. Tilling are one of the very oldest omnibus companies in London. They started in 1860, and they have given most excellent service during many years which they have been in operation. They operate throughout my constituency, and I can give testimony to the admirable omnibuses and to the service in general. They have acted in close co-operation with the London General Omnibus Company ever since 1913, and they are the joint owners in many cases of omnibuses which operate jointly with the Underground Company. Now they are selected for treatment different from that which is meted out to the Underground companies. The Underground companies' help was essential for this Bill, and therefore the terms had to be arrived at with them. When Mr. Morrison was in charge of this Bill, he met Messrs. Tilling, but the offers that he made to them were of such a nature, and were so much worse than the offers made to the Underground companies, that Messrs. Tilling, did not see their way to accept them.
Later on, when the present Minister took up the Bill, it was found necessary to consult the Metropolitan Railway because their opposition would have made it very much more difficult to carry this Bill through the House of Commons. They were consulted and arrangements were made with them and the Underground Group that gave satisfaction to them. The hon. Gentleman suggested equal treatment for everyone, and I agree
with that. In these circumstances, why should Messrs. Tilling not have equal treatment with the Underground Group? That is all that they ask, namely, that they should receive compensation based on their net earnings during the three years 1928–1930. Their concern is a very big one. While the Metropolitan Railway carried 86,000,000 passengers, and the Underground Railways 357,000,000, Messrs. Tilling carried 152,000,000. They are a very old, a very well established, and a very large concern, and I hope that my request that they should have equal treatment with the Underground companies will not be refused, because in my judgment they are entitled to it.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. REMER: I should like first of all to refer to the statement of the AttorneyGeneral which has been quoted by my hon. Friend. My reason for desiring to do so is that I saw the Minister shaking his head at the time that the quotation was made. If I may be allowed to do so—

Mr. PYBUS: If I may interrupt the hon. Member for a moment, I do not think he is entitled to register a decision by whether he thought that I was or was not shaking my head.

Mr. REMER: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was expressing disapproval of what my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson) was saying. Perhaps I might he allowed to read a letter which I personally have had from Messrs. Tilling. Having quoted the particular passage in the Attorney-General's speech which my hon. Friend has just read, they say this:
This is an entire misconception, whether deliberately for purposes of policy or not, of Tilling's case. Messrs. Tilling have from the very first had as their main thesis the principle that they should receive the same treatment as the Underground Group, no more and no less. The arrangements entered into by the promoters with the Underground Group have been made on a basis whereby that group take for the purchase of their undertakings holdings of London Passenger Transport Stock sufficient to give them approximately the average annual income arising -from the operations of that group for the three financial years ending 31st December, 1930.
I think that that shows quite clearly that Messrs. Tilling and the Metropolitan
Railway are in exactly the same position, or were in exactly the same position, the only difference being that, whereas the Metropolitan Railway has the main line railways to guarantee it and get the Government out of a difficulty, Messrs. Tilling have no one to guarantee them, and are placed in this position, that, while they have a better and more efficiently managed concern than the Underground, earning larger profits, the Minister is not prepared to take them over on the same basis as the Underground.
A great deal has been said from time to time about the 19½ years purchase which, whether hon. Gentlemen deny it or not, they know perfectly well they have agreed to as the basis on which the London General Omnibus Company shall be taken over. They know that in their own minds, but they are not prepared to put it forward, in case it might possibly prejudice some of the later negotiations. I quite agree with the comment which has been made that, in the case of a new undertaking, a mushroom growth which had come into operation within the last year or two, it would be unreasonable to say that anything like 19½ years' purchase should be offered as adequate compensation for taking it over: but Messrs. Tilling's concern, which over a long period of years has shown large and increasing profits and has been very efficiently managed, and which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, was on the road running omnibuses before the London General Omnibus Company were, should be given more serious consideration.
Why is it that Messrs. Tilling have earned bigger profits than the London General Omnibus Company? That is quite an easy question to answer. The answer is that they have not spent any money on things like those beautiful signs at St. James's Park Station, which have amused me intensely, showing that a train or omnibus is running here or there on a certain schedule. They have been business people conducting their business on business lines, without wasting money on something which brings in no revenue, but simply amuses little boys and myself, and possibly the Minister of Transport on occasions, by showing that a certain train at a certain moment is at Cannon Street Station, or wherever it may be. If the very efficiently
managed transport undertakings of Messrs. Tilling are to be taken over and put under the Underground, their profits, as the Minister knows, will be reduced to the level of those of the London General Omnibus Company, and, therefore, in the new undertaking there will not be the same profits coming in, because, as everyone knows, all Combines mean reduced profits when it comes to the real essence of the business.
I would like to lay further emphasis on the fact that Messrs. Tilling and the London General Omnibus Company have for some years been running as a pool, Messrs. Tilling sometimes running London General Omnibus Company omnibuses, and vice versa. Therefore, it is obvious that if, while participating in this pool, they are making larger profits than the London General Omnibus Company, they should be treated with greater equity than is the case in this Bill. All that they ask is that their shareholders shall receive under the combine the same return in either stock or cash as they are receiving at present. The Minister said just now that he was only going to deal with these matters fairly. Why cannot he deal with this matter fairly, and provide these shareholders with a fair return? This is not a capitalist concern in the ordinary sense of the word. The average shareholding is only £300 per head. In a concern like this, where people have invested their small savings and have been receiving a return over a period of years, they should be treated fairly and equitably.

8.56 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have a very warm corner in my heart for Messrs. Tilling by reason of the fact that my first recollection of London is their green omnibuses. I recognise that they have supplied a very important part in London transport. I was the more sorry, therefore, to hear that they have said in a letter to my hon. Friend that the Attorney-General made a statement possibly with a view to perverting the truth, or some such phrase as that. I hope they will acquit me of any improper motive. I stated what I thought to be the fact. I referred to the proceedings before the Select Committee, and I think the Committee will agree that this is a justification for my statement. On the last day on which the Committee sat,
Mr. Wilfred Greene, who appeared for the promoters, was discussing with the Committee the Clauses to be put into the Bill to meet the views of the different opponents. Mr. A. B. Miller, a very well-known counsel, appearing for Messrs. Tilling, was there and heard the statement. Mr. Wilfred Greene said that Messrs. Tilling wished to have a definite direction to have stock instead of cash, and that was accepted. I think that is pretty good justification for my statement that Messrs. Tilling had decided, for reasons which were satisfactory to themselves, to have stock. I quite agree. that the amount of stock was always to be left open. They have not agreed to accept any particular ratio of stock in exchange for their undertaking, but that in the presence of their counsel it was stated they wished to have stock is indisputable, nor is there any denial on the part of Mr. Miller. However, let it be that there was a misunderstanding. I do not wish to fasten on Messrs. Tilling a statement which they now think was not a correct statement of their position.
Let us come to the Amendment. I can answer my hon. Friend very shortly. Messrs. Tilling want to be put in the same position, presumably, as the Underground undertakings. The Underground undertakings are not dealt with in two parts, the omnibus undertaking and the railways undertaking, but as a whole. Messrs. Tilling, according to the Clause that we have already passed, will get what is fair and equitable. The only purpose of the proviso which my hon. Friend has moved is, presumably, to give them something which, according to that standard, is not fair and equitable but something hard and fast. They want a particular measure applied to them. If it is fair and equitable that they should get it, they will get it. If it is not fair acording to the arbitration tribunal, they will not.

Mr. REMER: One of their complaints is that they have spent £7,500 in appearing before the Select Committee. If they go before the arbitration tribunal, they will have to spend a very much larger sum of their shareholders' money to protect their right.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not think it will be a very much larger sum. That will be impossible, because the
proceedings before the Select Committee lasted 30 days, and the arbitration will not last anything like that. But that is a matter that we cannot possibly go into here. In any case, there will have to be arbitration, even if the Amendment is accepted, to apply the principle that they want. The answer is that this proviso seems to suggest that they are not to get what is fair and. equitable. I am afraid they must be content with getting a fair and equitable award from the arbitration tribunal which will be paid in stock. If Messrs. Tilling wish to be paid in cash, I think they should have told the Joint Committee so when that statement was made. The second objection to putting a hard and fast rule like this into the Bill is that Messrs. Tilling will have to satisfy the tribunal that the profits upon which they want the award to be based are maintainable. If they can satisfy the tribunal, no doubt they will get the same number of years' purchase as other undertakings in the same position, but, if the circumstances are not the same, they ought not to have the same number of years' purchase. It really all comes to the question of what is fair and reasonable, and I am afraid, with all the affection that I have for Messrs. Tilling and with all the gratitude they deserve from the London public for the magnificent way in which they have carried on their undertaking, they ought not to be in a privileged position but must be content to take their fair award from the arbitration tribunal.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I would press the Attorney-General to reconsider the matter. He stated on a previous Amendment that he had a perfectly vacant and open mind in connection with the wording of a paragraph, and he emphasised very strongly the necessity of any arbitration being perfectly fair and of applying the standard on which the previous arbitration had been given to the Clause in question. Surely that is on all fours with what the Amendment is asking. Certain terms are given to certain groups guaranteeing a certain return and surely Messrs. Tilling, who carry an enormous number of passengers and who were one of the first lines of omnibuses on the streets, should be put on all fours with these companies whose profits are
guaranteed. It is rather begging the question to say that they agreed to take stock. It was a question of how much stock. If the stock does not give them the same return as they have been earning, it is not much use to them. I do not think they can be accused of agreeing to accept stock when the question of the stock was in dispute. In view of the profits that they have earned—their shares stand at a high premium if my memory serves me right—they are just as much in a position to say their profits are going to continue as the General Omnibus Company or the District or the Metropolitan Railway. In the circumstances, I think the Government should reconsider the matter.
The Attorney-General asked: "Are they going to be put in a privileged position?" He admits that the other groups whose profits are based on the three-year period of earnings are in a privileged position, and that is one of the things that the Committee objects to very strongly. It may be very good business for those interests to be taken over on the basis of the three years ending 1930, but my feeling, and that of many Members, is that it is very bad business indeed for the people who have to use the transport of London to pay on a basis of the three years ending 1930, when business was extremely good and there were more people travelling than there are to-day. The returns for that year are very much larger than the returns they are going to earn in the present year. The Attorney-General admitted that they were in a privileged position. Why are Messrs. Tilling not to be in an equally privileged position? What have they done that they should be treated in this way?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My lion. Friend has no cause to become indignant. Messrs. Tilling will be dealt with on the basis of the earnings of the years in question. No -doubt that will be a factor to be taken into account. The hon. Gentleman is asking, and the Amendment is asking in effect that a definite years purchase on a three years' average should be taken. That is another question altogether.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Surely the one follows the other. If you are giving a 192 years' purchase to one group, we now know that they are a privileged group. Why
should not Messrs. Tilling be equally privileged? Have not they served the public just as well? Why should not they get the benefit of then services? Why give a privilege to one group and not to the other? In those circumstances, and in view of the very strong feeling in the Committee, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider the whole matter, and, though not necessarily accepting the words of the Amendment, give us a definite form of words so that Messrs. Tilling may receive the consideration in this matter to which I and many hon. Members of the Committee think-they are entitled.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. REMER: I have received a note which has been passed to me from a representative of Messrs. Tilling who happens to be in the Gallery. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I do not think that I am out of order in the observation which I have just made. It is a message sent to me with reference to the question of stock and of cash, and it is a simple one. The question is that Messrs. Tilling are prepared to accept stock—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member has put himself into a position in which I cannot allow him to go on. This is a statement proposed to be given in an unusual way, and, in the circumstances in which he has introduced it, I am afraid I cannot allow him to proceed.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The learned Attorney-General said—and rightly—that Messrs. Tilling ought not to be put into a privileged position. That is a sound thing. No one ought to be put into a privileged position under the Bill, but when I read the Bill I find that in the second Schedule there is a long list of large sums of stock to be handed over to certain enterprises. I do not understand why we do not find a similar Schedule with respect to all those other undertakings, so that we may know exactly where we are. We had a pro forma statement from the accountant in which he made an estimate of how this thing would work out. I do not see how any real estimate can ever be formulated as to the ultimate results of the working of this undertaking until we know what the effective capital will be. Either capital has to be raised on
the market or in the form of stock issued in payment of the undertaking. Therefore, I was a little surprised when the Attorney-General said that Messrs. Tilling ought not to be put into a privileged position. I do not see why anybody should be put into a privileged position. If arbitration is good enough for one lot of people, it ought to be good enough for all. If certain people are to be dealt with on stated terms, the same principle ought to be applied to all persons whose undertakings can be compulsorily acquired.

Amendment negatived.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 22, line 20, to leave out paragraph (b).

This is a consequential Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 22, line 39, to leave out the word "Traffic," and to insert instead thereof the words "Passenger Transport."
This also is a Government Amendment which follows logically upon the substitution by the Joint Committee of tie London Passenger Transport Area for the London Traffic Area as the area of the operations of the board.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. PYBUS: I beg to move, in page 23, line 3, after the word "eight," to insert the words "or Sub-section (1) of Section 10."
This is purely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

9.12 p.m.

Commander MARSDEN: I have a manuscript Amendment—in page 23, line 7, to leave out Sub-section (9). I apologise to the Committee for having handed it in at a late hour. Subsection (9) says:
For the purposes of this section the underground undertakings shall be treated as a single undertaking.
I have on the Paper another Amendment which follows, and I will make my arguments for the two Amendments together. If the first Amendment does not receive the approval of the Committee, the second Amendment, I am afraid, will be impossible. The position is one of fair treatment for all parts of the various undertakings brought under
the Bill, and I feel that the independent undertakings are also not getting, or may not get, as good terms as the larger undertakings. They have to come before the Arbitration Tribunal, and, as the Attorney-General says, they will, of course, receive fair, equitable and reasonable compensation for that which the Combine is asking. The decision will be arrived at by the chairman of the Arbitration Board on taking the property over on a fair commercial basis. He will, I presume, be quite undeterred and un-swayed by anything which has gone before, and we feel that these independent undertakings may not get quite as good treatment as the bigger undertakings.
I am particularly glad to find that the Minister of Transport is in charge to reply, and I wish to take this occasion of saying how extremely courteous and accessible I have found him on all occasions when having anything to do with transport. The Amendment is not a question of legal niceties. It really raises the general feeling throughout the country, and certainly throughout this Committee, that there should be fair treatment. The subsequent Amendment in my name states that the independent undertakings are not to be less favourably treated than the bigger undertakings. The last four lines of the Amendment relate to omnibuses. If Sub-section (9) remains part of the Bill it would be impossible to differentiate the apportionment of stock and determine on what basis the compensation for the larger holdings had been arrived at. In Part I of the Second Schedule there is an enormous amount of stock allocated to various undertakings. If we were to say that the amount so allocated in each case was the value of the company concerned, we should be stating an inaccurate position of affairs. Over the whole combine this enormous amount of stock has been transferred and against each separate part of it a certain amount of stock was placed, but how that was arrived at we do not know and we should like to know.
The feeling of the independent omnibus companies is that in regard to those parts of the undertakings which are purely omnibuses and have nothing to do with tramways, light railways, local railways or underground railways, if they could find out how the assessment was arrived
at on which the compensation or taking-over value was paid to these companies, they would only ask to be treated not less favourably. I emphasise the words "not less favourably." It is possible that when they go before the arbitration tribunal they may find themselves fairly well treated, in which case there will be no need for appeal, but the chairman of the arbitration board will have an opinion of his own and not care what anybody has said, and they may find themselves less well treated. Therefore, the point of the two Amendments is to ask that the small and independent undertakings shall receive not less favourable treatment than the larger undertakings.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member handed in his manuscript Amendment with the object of making quite sure that his subsequent Amendment was really in order. I think he will agree that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I put the two Amendments as one—in page 23, to leave out lines 7 and 8 and to insert the words on the paper.

Commander MARSDEN: I beg to move, in page 23, to leave out lines 7 and 8, and to insert instead thereof the words:
(9) The Arbitration Tribunal shall secure that the basis of compensation payable hereunder in respect of the independent undertakings, and parts of such undertakings transferred by this Act, shall not be less favourable than the formula or basis of compensation applied by any agreement or award hereunder, or attributable to that part only of the underground undertakings, as consists of the provision of the services of stage carriages, in respect of which schedules have been deposited with the licensing authority under Section six of the London Traffic Act, 1924.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: Like the hon. and gallant Member, I am very anxious that complete fair play should be given to all the undertakings who have not yet come to an agreement and who go to arbitration. Whether those undertakings are large, as in the case of Messrs. Tilling, or small undertakings, of which there are a good number, we are all agreed, and I am sure the Committee is anxious, that an absolutely fair deal should be given to all concerned. If the Amendment were accepted the Tribunal would be directed to apply to each of these small undertakings and the large ones the same
measure of value, including the security of their business, as that applied to statutory undertakings of an entirely different character, such as the Metropolitan Railway. It is the intention of the Government that each of the smaller businesses should be taken over on fair terms. When the undertakers go before the arbitration tribunal which has been set up specifically for the purpose of dealing with them, they will have an opportunity of representing their cases, the maintainability of their profits, and what those profits have been in the standard years. I think the hon. and gallant Member, having voiced the case of the parties not yet part of the agreement, can rest assured that no injustice will be done.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: May I ask whether it is the intention of the Arbitration Tribunal to take as the "standard years" referred to by the Minister, the identical calendar years for these smaller units as are taken in the ease of the greater undertakings with whom an agreement has been reached and if not what machinery is to be applied to them for adjustment? Whereas for the bigger undertakings certain years were taken it is thought by the smaller undertakings that they may be called upon to submit to an award based on years less favourable than those which have been taken in the case of the larger undertakings.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I do not think that the Minister understood my hon. and gallant Friend's position. Already, as I understand the Minister's statement, certain undertakings have come in on terms. It is rumoured that they have received 19¾ years' purchase. It is now proposed to take over other undertakings, small undertakings, which in some cases are not able to look after themselves, and they come in when the large block of money available for compensation, or whatever we choose to call it, has been dealt with. Will not the Minister accept the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment, which provides that these smaller concerns shall have a fair show, or is he going to leave them to chance? It may be said that you have already an amalgamation of 80 or 90 per cent. of the undertakings and that when they agree to work together the chances of the smaller undertakings working successfully is reduced. The
Arbitrator Tribunal may say that these small undertakings have stood out and the other companies have been taken in on the basis of years which have been successful. Will they take in these other companies on the same terms? We want an assurance that the smaller undertakings shall get no worse treatment than the other companies. The Minister has not advanced a case for rejecting the Amendment. He seemed to think that there was a great deal in the Amendment and that it would not do much harm, but that the matter had better be left to arbitration. Why not put it in the Bill. Surely the Minister is not hard-hearted. There could be no great objection to making provision in the Bill. I do not know whether 'we shall get any support from the official Opposition, but occasionally it would be wise for the Minister to consider the position of the smaller people as well as the very big people. He could not make the Bill any worse, for it is bad enough as it is.

9.25 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: The Minister cannot suspect me of being anxious to delay this Bill or of making the proceedings difficult. I do not pretend to be an authority on this subject or on the Amendment, but one thing which seems to me to be perfectly clear is that the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment put a case and the Minister's answer was clearly no answer to that case or to the Amendment. After all, in discussions of this kind we must expect a certain standard of logical argument. The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment is that the basis of compensation applying to the smaller undertakings should be the same as that applying to the Underground companies. To this the Minister replied. "You are asking that the same compensation should be paid to the smaller undertakings as to the Underground companies irrespective of the maintainability of their profit." Does that mean that the basis of compensation payable to the Underground companies has no relation to the maintainability of their profit? If the basis of compensation adopted for the Underground companies takes maintainability of profits into consideration, then the claim that the same basis should be adopted for other undertakings will equally take maintainability of their profits into consideration. The
Minister's answer was no answer at all. I confess I am doubtful where the merits of the case lie, but, in any case, surely we can have an answer which deals with the arguments instead of sliding off them and having no relation to them at all.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS: My answer may not have satisfied the Noble Lord and the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment, but they must appreciate that each undertaking varies in a good many ways. For instance in the case of the Underground, we have tubes and omnibuses on the roads, in the case of Tilling's we have omnibuses on the roads, and in the case to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred we have a number of undertakers who apparently run omnibuses only.

Lord E. PERCY: Has it, escaped the Minister's attention that the Amendment proposes to separate omnibuses from the Underground in fixing compensation?

Mr. PYBUS: Yes, but the fact remains that it was not possible, and in the provisions which are made for arbitration as to the amount of stock or cash, consideration as to profits over standard years and the maintainability of profits will be taken into account. I may not have satisfied the hon. and gallant Gentleman but I am afraid there is no more to add, for the matter was argued at great length and the Attorney-General replied.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: It is a pity the Noble Lord was not able to be in the Committee when we discussed the earlier part of the Clause, because if he had been he would not have suggested there would be a possibility of getting compensation on the same basis, because the Attorney-General endeavoured to explain that Sub-section (2) of this Clause gave no agreed amount. We gathered from that that they were going to take a number of results, and take the one they liked. Therefore, really this Amendment has been argued without due knowledge of what has gone before, because it is trying to add something quite precise to something which is already extremely vague.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I do not wish to quarrel with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, but I have attended throughout, and the position of the Noble Lord is quite unassailable. He is just as little desirous of wasting the time of the Committee as I am, and I am glad he is taking part in the Debate because his case is absolutely unanswerable. We have had no answer whatever of any sort or kind, and if the Noble Lord had been here the whole evening he would have known that, as far as its financial side is concerned, the Bill is a perfectly hopeless one from beginning to end, and that the Government have no justification at all for turning the Amendment down. I only hope that on this occasion we shall have a Division.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. HUTCHISON: I have listened to the arguments of the Minister, and I do not think he has given a definite answer in any way. He has suggested that the Amendment has some good points, and he does nothing further. I want to know if something can be done about it? If the Minister is not prepared to accept the Amendment, can he suggest another which would do as well as this? He talked about undertakers, but, as far as I can make out, with this Bill going through, we shall all need undertakers to look after us.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. MAITLAND: In my opinion, the Minister has given a very proper answer, and I think he was perfectly right when he said that it was utterly impossible to accept the Amendment and to assume that the same set of circumstances could apply to a dozen or to 30 or 40 different concerns. If the Amendment were insisted upon, the effect would be that hon. Members would be assuming that the arrangements already accepted were sound and proper. On that question I must say I am afraid that I am not satisfied at all that that is so. I do not think the Committee has had sufficient opportunity of considering the basis of compensation, but I entirely agree with the Minister that to accept the Amendment and to have no regard at all for the various circumstances would be quite improper.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

9.34 p.m.

Major NATHAN: I want to raise one point, and to ask for an explanation. The first Sub-section lays clown that the procedure to be adopted by the arbitration tribunal in determining the consideration is to be that the tribunal is to have regard to all the circumstances of the case and is then. to value the undertaking and award a consideration equivalent to the value. That seems to me to be clear and unambiguous, but when I refer to Sub-section (3) I find a reference to the arbitration tribunal which settles the consideration being under an obligation to take into consideration any factor relevant to the case put before them. Under Sub-section (1) the tribunal is already under the obligation to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, arid the question I put is: What are the factors referred to in Sub-section (3) which are not covered by the phrase "all the circumstances of the case" in Subsection (1)? The tribunal under Subsection (3) are under compulsion in making their award to take such factors into account, and under Sub-section (1) they are already under the obligation to take all the circumstances of the case into account in determining the value and the consideration. Perhaps the Government will give some indication of the reasons underlying the insertion of the words in Sub-section (3).

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The question of the hon. and gallant Member admits of a simple answer. Sub-section (1) directs the tribunal to have regard to all the circumstances of the case while Sub-section (3) says that they shall not only have regard to the circumstances of the case, but that they shall include the factors in their calculation. You may have regard to a thing and reject it, but Sub-section (3) says that in making their award they shall take such factors into account. They cannot look at them and then walk the other way; they have to take them into account.

9.38 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: I hope the Committee will forgive me if I draw their attention, in no controversial spirit, to one fact which has emerged out of the discussion. We
have been discussing the question of the relative compensation to be given to certain undertakings which have come in by agreement. Undertakings which have not come in by agreement are to have their compensation fixed by arbitration. Broadly speaking, that is the issue. When amalgamations take place in private business, that is precisely what happens; those who are prepared to agree get better terms, and those who come in afterwards have to put up with something which is regarded as fair and equitable, but which is considerably less good than the terms they could have got by agreement. That is what is happening here. The Government, in order to agree with the Underground undertakings, came to a deal, not on any fixed basis of compensation—and that is the real reason why the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for North Battersea (Commander Marsden) could not be accepted—not on any fixed basis of compensation, but upon just what the two parties could agree upon.
The point to which I desire to draw the attention of the Committee is this. The significant thing about this Bill is that we are making our first attempt at a big public amalgamation, the terms of which are being fixed by the House of Commons. The real difficulty of such an amalgamation, such a semi-State effort, is that the basis of compensation of treating people who agree with you in one way and those who do not agree in another, however necessary it may be in private, is not the kind of procedure which can be recommended with any security or feelings of safety to the House of Commons and, indeed, it is not a procedure which can be taken with any great dignity by His Majesty's Government. It will prove in the future one of the real problems of any legislation of this kind.

CLAUSE 15.—(Power of board to run public service vehicles.)

Mr. LINDSAY: I beg to move, in page 23, line 10, after the word "section," to insert the words:
and save as hereinafter provided by the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
9.41 p.m.
Earlier in the evening I made an unsuccessful effort to obtain some information about the relation of this Bill to the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and on this Amendment I can return to the same subject. It deals with the position under the Road Traffic Act. Sections 72 to 76 of that Act set up a licensing system whereby anyone who wants to run a public service vehicle has to go before the Traffic Commissioners of the area and get a licence. Sub-section (3) of this Clause provides that the newly-constituted board are exempt from that obligation within the special area. When they run outside the special area, I take it, they have to comply with the provisions of the Road Traffic Act and go before the Traffic Commissioners and get a licence. That is implied by Sub-section (4) which lays down what the Traffic Commissioners shall do when they consider such an application. The Attorney-General will agree that nowhere in this Clause is there anything which makes it clear that this obligation rests on the board. Some of my hon. Friends think that the matter ought to be carried further, and that within the special area the board ought to go before the Traffic Commissioners and get a licence. I say nothing about that, and if the Amendment is carried that question still remains open, and can be dealt with afterwards. You have already under the Act of 1930 and the Act of 1924 what appear to me to be adequate means of controlling the surface traffic, and you are now setting up entirely new machinery, without any clear conception as to how the two bodies will fit in together. The real purpose of the Amendment is to get a clear statement as to the relations between these two bodies. Has the Minister of Transport considered what will be the position of the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner, and if he has thought it out, may we have the benefit of his thoughts? He may look upon some of us as fractions; but we are not. Many of us have been deprived, of the advantage of hearing the Second Reading Debate on this Bill and also of the inquiries which have been made, and we are therefore anxious to understand the Bill, and we want to help the Government to pass a Bill which will be a good Bill.

9.44 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I quite appreciate the desire of the hon. Member for information, but these words are unnecessary. The general law applies except in so far as the special area is exempted. For instance, he referred to Sub-section (3) which exempts the special area, because in this special area there will be really no need for the activities of the Traffic Commissioner. The board will have a monopoly of the traffic in the area and will be responsible for the vehicles which run and for the conduct of the traffic.

Mr. LINDSAY: Will the Metropolitan traffic commissioner still have control over omnibuses which come into London from Nottingham and Leicester? They will still be running within the special area.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: In regard to omnibuses which go through the special area and do not stop, I take it that the existing law will apply, and they will have to have the visa of the Metropolitan traffic commissioner in the same way as they do now?

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: If an omnibus comes from an important place like Torquay and is nut going through the area, at what stage does the omnibus become subject to this condition?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If the omnibus goes through the area?

Mr. WILLIAMS: No, not through; if it is coming from Torquay to London.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: It would be in exactly the same position as it is in now.

Amendment negatived.

Major JESSON: I beg to move, in page 23, line 10, after the word "section," to insert the words:
and to the grant of a road service licence under Sections seventy-two to seventy-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, as amended by this Act.
9.46 p.m.
Like the hon. Member for Bristol South (Mr. Lindsay) I am in the difficulty that I have not had the privilege of hearing the Second Reading of this important and cumbrous Bill. The purpose of this Amendment, and of consequential Amendments, is to extend the existing control
over London traffic by applying to it the system of road traffic licences which are granted by the road traffic commissioners. This system applies under the Road Traffic Act of 1930, in other parts of Great Britain. The Amendment would require the board and all other public service vehicle undertakers in the London area to obtain road service licences, and to satisfy the road traffic commissioners that such licences ought to be granted. It is really an alternative to the monopoly to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred; he used the word "monopoly." The Amendment is an alternative to Clause 16, which gives to this proposed board absolute powers. If one refers to Clause 16 one finds that the hoard, while operating road vehicle services, is to determine whether any other undertakings should operate in competition with it. There is to be no appeal from the board's decision. The alternative proposed in the Amendment is to put the road traffic commissioners in authority over the board, and to let decisions as to co-ordination or control rest with the commissioners.
The commissioners under the Road Traffic Act of 1930 have definite duties laid down, as to whether they should or should not grant licences. They have to consider the suitability of a route, the extent of a route, the extent to which the proposed service is necessary in the public interest, and the needs of the area, and having thought over those matters the commissioners have a right to say whether the fares are reasonable, whether they are desirable in the public interests, they can decide that fare-tables must be carried and where passengers shall be picked up and dropped. It is a great mistake to suppose that to-day there exists no control over London traffic. The supporters of this Bill endeavour to create the view that London traffic is not controlled, and that it will be controlled only if this Bill is passed. Nothing of the kind. I noticed only last Thursday that that old Tory paper the "Times" said this:
Moreover it is precisely because there has hitherto been no unified control over London passenger transport that the present difficulty, which the Bill is designed to remedy, has n fact arisen.
Later on it said:
The continuous addition of internecine competition is useless duplication and congestion.
These are phrases which might make some people gain the impression that there was no control over traffic in London, and that this Bill is going to remedy. all that. So far as omnibuses and coach traffic are concerned, that statement is entirely false. London street traffic by omnibus and coach to-day is very strictly controlled by the London Traffic Act of 1924 and the London Traffic Act of 1930. The Minister of Transport to-day can make restricted streets orders under the London Traffic Act of 1924, and can prevent the increase in the number of omnibuses on any of the restricted streets.
The learned Attorney-General said the other day that the object of the Bill was to do away with congestion in the streets. I say that it is possible to deal with the congestion in the streets with the powers that already exist. There is competition to-day between the London General Omnibus Company and the independent undertakings. They provide services and those services have to meet with the approval of the commissioners. But both these competitors are tied strictly to a schedule and they cannot increase their services without coming before the commissioners again. That is a very important provision. I am not a shareholder in any omnibus concern, but one must feel that the great Combines have got terms, and one must put in a word for the underdog, the little independent omnibus owner who by his initiative, his courage, and his enterprise has done a great deal to bring the omnibus service to the state of efficiency in which it undoubtedly is to-day. These motor coaches are controlled by the London Traffic Act and the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner. He exercises the necessary control. The combined effect of these two systems of very strict control is that the public gets an excellent omnibus service. It is true that it is rather a patchwork machinery. You have the Commissioner of Police, the Minister of Transport and the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner, but at the some time there is the power to prevent congestion in the streets.
Why not let the board be on the same basis as an independent omnibus pro
prietor? Let them go before the traffic commissioner and let their case be stated, and then the commissioner could grant a licence in the usual way. In practice you get this done in every other part of Great Britain. There is no reason why it should not be done equally in London. Competition is the best stimulant to efficiency. Let us look for one moment beyond the frontier of hope and optimism. Suppose that this board is not successful from the financial point of view. In my humble opinion, experience shows that these great combines do not make so much money as the small undertakings. In the case of these big undertakings you have at the head of affairs men drawing big salaries. The overhead charges are heavier than in privately-owned concerns and there is no liaison between the top men and the bottom men such as one finds in a privately-owned concern. The advantages which the privately-owned concerns possess have proved useful up to now and it is a pity to let them go because of this rather autocratic Measure which puts the proposed new board in such a strong position. If money is not made by the new undertaking what will be the result? Fares will have to be increased or services will have to be restricted and the public will suffer. If there is healthy competition by independent competitors it will keep the board and those under the board on the alert and I suggest that the Government ought to look favourably upon this Amendment and the consequential Amendments which follow.

9.56 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The effect of this Amendment and the subsequent Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member on Clause 16 would be to require the board to obtain road service licences for all their omnibus and express services within the special area, which of course includes the City of London and the Metropolitan Police District. The board will be required to take over all the undertakings now providing road services in that area and it seems hardly necessary that Sections 72 to 76 of the Road Traffic Act should be made to apply. If this Amendment were accepted it would also involve considerable waste of time and energy on the part of the traffic commissioner and his staff and would do away with the economies which we propose to carry out
under Clause 50 by transferring certain functions of the Commissioner of Police in connection with traffic, to the traffic commissioner. The Amendment really destroys the principle of the Bill which is to unify the ownership and management of the means of transport in the special area. It would also in my opinion hamper the board in carrying out the duties which are laid down in Clause 3.

Major JESSON: Do I understand that it is the intention of the board to take over the whole of the omnibus undertakings now plying within the special area?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The board can do so or it can leave them as they are. It is a matter of agreement but the power is given to the board in the Bill.

Major JESSON: That is the point. It can take over these other omnibuses but it may not do so. Therefore, instead of getting unity of control you are going to have a board which can put its omnibuses on the road without any examination or licensing, while those omnibuses within the special area which are not taken over, have to obtain road licences Therefore you will have, not unity, but dual control.

10.0 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: Is it not also the fact that so far from getting unification you will get separate responsibility? Is it not the case that under Clause 60 the metropolitan traffic commissioner will control the routes for all public services, while under Clause 61 the Minister will control the number of vehicles and under Clause 16 the board will decide whether or not other operators may run on those routes? Are we not getting away from unification and spreading the work over three different sources of authority?

Amendment negatived.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I call upon the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) to move the next Amendment on the Paper, I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss the four Amendments in the name of the hon. Member on this first Amendment, as they all raise the question of roads in the county of Buckingham.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I beg to move, in page 23, line 17, at the end, to insert the words:
except roads in the county of Buckingham.
10.1 p.m.
The object of this Amendment is to leave the administrative county of Buckingham out of the purview of the Bill. The effect of the Bill on the county of Buckingham comes under three heads. In the first place the Bill is applied to the area which, under the London Traffic Act of 1924, is already in the London transport area. Why that part of Buckingham was ever placed in the London traffic area is a mystery to anybody who lives in the county and I can only suggest that it was done because that was the only time in the last 10 years when the Members of Parliament for the two divisions affected were not of the Conservative party. Probably realising that their tenure of office could not be long those Members did not take the interest in this matter which they might otherwise have taken. I do not propose to argue the merits or demerits of the Bill all over again but I wish to point out that the effect which the Bill will have on the centre of London is very different from the effect which it will have on the outlying areas. Frankly, I do not very much mind what happens in London. I think I heard the Minister just now in an audible "aside" refer to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) taking part in these discussions although not a London Member. But the Bill seriously affects outside areas in the London passenger district which are not actually in London. These are the areas which will suffer most under the Bill. We have heard a great deal of various interests being consulted and considered but one interest which has been sadly neglected is that of the travelling public in those areas and it is on behalf of those people in my constituency that I move the Amendment.
The second way in which the Bill will injure Buckingham—and one has to read through the Bill and refer to the signed map and delve into various documents before one discovers it—is that it extends the London transport area in the county by a further eight miles and allows it to be extended even further. There is no justification whatever for that course. Buckingham is not connected with London in any way. The area is riddled with little local services which have no connection with the services in the
London area. They are services run by small concerns linking various villages in the county and have nothing to do with the great problem of London transport.
I suggest, without labouring the point, that it is absurd to put that class of rural service in the hill villages of the Chilterns under the control of this board. There is no reason why they should, and they cannot, have an understanding of, let us say, the needs of Bledlow or Bledlow Ridge, to take two villages in the Chilterns which will come under the purview of this Bill. It is putting on the board something they are not fitted to do, and it is introducing an area which has nothing to do with the main purpose of the Bill. I notice that, although the Bill takes in a proportion of Essex, the Minister's own constituency of Harwich is not affected, and I cannot see why he is going to be let off in this way. For that matter, I cannot see why Barnard Castle, the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, should not be affected, because it sends omnibuses to London and is no more outside the scope of London traffic than some of the areas included in Buckinghamshire.
It is perhaps unfortunate that the county council have received no notice whatever of the changes that have taken place in this Bill. It is true, as I realise, that the powers of the Bill are not, strictly speaking, powers that affect the county council, but if hon. Members turn to Schedule 10, they will see that the Traffic Advisory Committee is considered to affect the Buckinghamshire County Council sufficiently to give them a joint right, with Hertfordshire, to nominate a member on that committee. They have not been informed that the Bill affects them in any way. They have not even seen the signed map. They have had no facility for understanding the effects on the county of the changes in the Bill, and it was not until I, by my own action and some careful research, discovered what was going to happen to the county under the Bill, that the county council were a ware that it affected them at all.
I suggest that the effects will be very serious. We have had some experience under the Road Traffic Act of the decrease of facilities of public control, and I am certain that that decrease will be intensified in the area of the county which will
come under this Bill. I contend that there is- no justification for it at all, and that it is my duty, as representing the people in that part of the world, first of all to stand out as far as I can for the maintenance of small local facilities and, secondly, for the retention of those small local omnibus services which have nothing whatever to do with the main London traffic problem, but which serve an extraordinarily useful purpose locally, both by affording facilities of communication and local employment and by providing traffic services by people who understand the needs of the area.
There is yet a third point in which the Bill affects, and affects seriously, the area under discussion. Besides the actual extensions under the Bill, there are various roads, marked on the signed map by blue dotted lines, into which the board may extend their activities on application. They are mentioned in the various Amendments which we are discussing with the one that I am actually moving. There is the road from Tring to Aylesbury, there is the road from Little Missenden to Great Missenden, Wendover, Tring, and Dunstable, and there is the road, mentioned in the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), from Slough to Maidenhead, which actually strays into Berkshire. Those roads cannot, by any possible stretch of imagination, have any more connection with London transport than has any other main road in the country. The only connection they can possibly have with London is that, as on all other main roads, including the Great North Road and the Great West Road, there are coaches which run over them to London.
I regret that I did not quite understand the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), as to whether the board would or would not have anything to do with vehicles which came from outside the area into the area. He made it clear that the Traffic Commissioners would still have control, but whether the board would have control was not made clear. If it does, you will have purely local services starting outside the area, coming inside the area and being affected by the London Transport Board.
I do not wish to stress the point at greater length, but I appeal to the Minister, first of all, to leave the county of Buckingham out altogether. It has nothing to do with London, it wants nothing to do with London, and it only wants to be left alone. If he cannot do that, will he at least consider not- extending the scope of the Bill beyond the area under the London Transport Act, 1924? The reason for that extension seems peculiar. It has been suggested that some of the provincial omnibus companies have had some of their areas curtailed and are having them made up at the expense of counties such as Buckinghamshire, and what they gain on the swings, we lose on the roundabouts. If the Minister cannot exclude the whole county, I ask him if he will exclude that part which comes in afresh under this Bill; and if he cannot do even that, will he at least remove from the purview of the Bill those new roads which have nothing whatever to do with the general scheme of the Bill, which are marked on the signed map by a dotted line, and which can be brought into the Bill apparently at a moment's notice by application for, so far as I can see, no reason whatever.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: May I add a word in support of the Amendment? This is a most important matter. If London is content. to be ruled by this combine, we in the country are not at all content to be so ruled. If hon. Members look at the signed map, which bulks so largely in this Bill, they will see the London traffic area marked, and running out of that area are 100 arms, or not quite so many yet, but the number will increase if they are not checked at the start. Those arms or spurs denote roads over which the new board will have power to operate. Let me give an example of how it will work, with regard to the road from Slough to Maidenhead. Slough is in the constituency of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), and Maidenhead is in my constituency. That section of road was operated by the Green Line. The other operatives, some of whom were on the road before the Green Line, opposed the renewal of the licence of the Green Line, and it was refused by the traffic commissioners. The Green Line appealed, but the decision of the traffic
commissioners was upheld by the Minister, and so the Green Line ceased to have the right to operate that section of the Bath Road. The Green Line is part of the Underground Combine, and, according; to 'Clause 15, Sub-section (1), paragraphs (a) and (b), particularly paragraph (b), the board, which will obtain possession of the Green Line as part of the Underground Combine, will have the power to operate that section of the road again against the decision of the Minister himself. How will that work? This great Combine will come into competition with the smaller services which are now operating that road. It is not at all consonant with a Government which depends upon Conservative support that they should be backing a great Combine against the rights of the smaller people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) and I wish to make a protest on behalf of the smaller services that are giving good service to the public, and to ask the Government not to give to this monstrous Combine the power of stretching their arms out over the whole countryside and coming into competition with the smaller people. I hope that we shall get sufficient support in every part of the House so that, if we cannot get a satisfactory reply from the Minister, we shall divide on these Amendments. It may be said that all the smaller services are protected by the traffic commissioners, who retain their powers, but that is not true with regard to the road of which I am speaking from Slough to Maidenhead, because the Bill gives the board powers to run services on that section of the Bath Road. It affects the whole of the Bath Road up to Reading. I appeal to the Government to take this important matter into consideration and not to give to this monstrous Combine the power to interfere with the services in the country or to permit competition that will seriously damage the smaller people. London, if it wishes, may be satisfied with the Combine, but we in the country object very strongly to falling into the claws of the monster.

10.18 p.m.

Dr. HOWITT: I wish strongly to support the Amendment and to speak particularly about the road from Slough to Maidenhead. I urge the Government to accept the
Amendment. This subject has been twice considered; it has been brought before the traffic commissioners and the Minister, and each time the Green Line has not been allowed to trade on this route. Do the Government wish that it should be considered in the country that they want to suppress all private enterprise? This is a state of affairs where private enterprise that has quite successfully operated on this route is to be suppressed, even though it has been upheld by the traffic commissioners and the Minister. It would be a bad thing if it were felt in the country that the Government are supressing private enterprise outside the London traffic area. I agree with the Government that it is necessary to have unification of London traffic, but surely if it goes as far as Slough that is quite sufficient. If it goes beyond that, why not take it right down the West Road for goodness knows how many miles? There must be a limit to what is regarded as London, and surely Slough is far enough to go. The road betwen Slough and Maidenhead has been successfully worked by a line called "Thackeray's Way," and surely the Government should show sympathetic consideration to a line already operating whose work has already been twice upheld. I ask the Government to agree to this Amendment, because it is extremely unfair to a line which has operated so well to be suppressed entirely.

10.21 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: There are in this Amendment several very important principles which have been brought out by those who have moved or supported it. I would like to take the Committee back to the days of the Loudon Passenger Transport Act, which was under discussion in the days when hon. Members opposite were in office.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: To what Act is the Noble Lord referring? Does he mean the Road Traffic Act?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, I am sorry if I misquoted it. It is the Road Traffic Act. Some of those now on the Government Bench and on the benches supporting the Government may remember what took place when that Act was under discussion. Some of us who were then in opposition as Members of the Conserva-
tive party raised certain objections to the area of operation of that Measure. We were told it was necessary to go outside the area of London because it was impossible to get a co-ordination of London traffic unless we went outside the Metropolitan Police area. I moved an Amendment to confine the area to the Metropolitan Police area. The point I wish to put is that at the time when the Conservative party supported the Act because it was said it was necessary in order to co-ordinate London traffic that traffic was not in one combine but was run by individual enterprises. In other words, it was necessary to pass the Act to prevent numerous companies which were then operating from cutting each others' throats, and that was the only condition on which the Conservative party supported it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sorry to interrupt, but I should like to be quite clear what Act the Noble Lord is speaking about. He spoke about the Road Traffic Act, 1930.

Earl WINTERTON: No.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Then he is speaking about the London Traffic Act, 1924, and I am afraid his hypothesis will not do, because the Conservatives were in power then.

Earl WINTERTON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. The Act of which I am speaking is the London Traffic Act brought in by the late Mr. Gosling, when he was Minister of Transport. I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend took part in the discussions then but I took a very considerable part, and as far as I can recollect I moved an Amendment—I know that I supported it—to confine the operations of the Act to the Metropolitan Police district. We were told it was necessary to have the wider area, which I believe is technically known as the London traffic area, because if it were merely confined to the Metropolitan Police district it would not be possible to co-ordinate the traffic affected. That was traffic in the hands of private enterprise, and the Conservative party only supported the Act, or at least they did not oppose it, on the assumption that it was going to apply to the then existing conditions. Now what do we find the Government
proposing in this Bill? They propose to apply it to the whole of that traffic area, parts of which are outside what, on a strict interpretation, could be called the London area—it applies as far south as Guildford—and an hon. Member has pointed out they even propose to extend the area. He has assured me and the Committee, and I understand his information is based on what he has been told by the local authorities in Buckinghamshire, that the joint committee have actually enlarged the area in the original Bill, under which the operating area was the London traffic area as defined in the First Schedule of the London Traffic Act.
Here is a very curious question in connection with this subject which I hope one of the Ministers will answer. The London area has been extended in the case of Buckinghamshire and, I am given to understand in the case of Essex, that they have actually reduced the London traffic area. I am told that they have done so because of some understanding that has been come to with the companies operating in the area. The Government should give an explanation of it. Why have they extended the area, in the case of Buckinghamshire, even outside the London traffic area? I will put it to all Conservatives and to all supporters of the Government, what possible justification is there for the nationalisation of traffic in rural areas? Hon. Members of the Opposition appreciate what our views are, although they may not be able to agree with them. They may admit that we were right. It is bad enough from our point of view to nationalise traffic in the purely urban area, but when you go eight miles outside the area of London traffic, that is a matter which seems to me to call for some explanation. What is the reason for it? Why have they increased the area in the case of Kent? This is a question of very considerable principle. I assure the Members of the Government that one thing for which their supporters were not returned at the last election was the nationalisation of the road traffic of this country.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I should very much like to emphasise what has just been said by the Noble Lord. It is intolerable to me that the Government under this Bill should take powers to go so far
out of London. I happen to know the Thackeray's Way Company very well. The service was started from very small beginnings. It has served the public well, and now that it is a prosperous little company, it is to be squeezed out of existence. It is serving a branch route, and is doing very well. It is to be squeezed out in favour of some of the privileged groups. I do not think that that it is fair or just. How far are the Combine going? They are spreading their claws all round. They are taking control of all the small companies and squeezing them out of existence. Where is the process going to stop? Is individual enterprise going to be squeezed out altogether? [Interruption.] Apparently hon. Members of the Opposition are entirely in agreement with the Government over this squeezing out of individuals by nationalised transport. Where is it going to stop? I am satisfied that you will never get the same service from a Combine that you get from these individual services. They have served the country and their districts well, and they deserve consideration. In view of the interests affected, the Government might keep the Combine off branch routes, and confine it to London and central London traffic.

10.30 p.m.

Major HARVEY: Up to the present I have not taken any part in this Debate, because I thought that it was concerned with London traffic, but, in the Clause that is now under discussion, we find fingers, or arms, or whatever they may be called, radiating into all parts of the country, indicating that the question of transport in London may be extended into a very much larger area. That would certainly do a considerable amount of harm to a great many people around London who have spent a great deal of money and time and have rendered excellent services to the local people. My constituency, the Totnes Division of Devonshire—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think we can bring Totnes into London.

Major HARVEY: Of course, I accept your Ruling, but I was putting a proposition as an illustration of what might happen. Just as London is surrounded entirely by various other counties, so my constituency entirely surrounds Torquay, and this Measure might form a precedent
for some local authority applying for powers to run services into the various local districts of my constituency. It seems to me to be a very dangerous precedent. I do not claim to know perfectly all the ramifications of the area which is dealt with in this Amendment, although I have a fair knowledge of Slough, but it seems to me to be reasonable that some limit should be set to the extension of these tentacles which are now stretching out into the country in the endeavour to crush out local enterprise which has done so well in the past.

10.32 p.m.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: You have ruled, Captain Bourne, that the discussion on this Amendment must stop at Buckingham, but I am wondering where Buckingham is going to 'stop. It is spreading all over the country, and, after my own experience of the Ministry of Transport, and what they have done for a good many of my constituents in making their lives very much harder by the restriction of services, I have a good deal of difficulty in thinking that we are not making it unduly easy for the powers that be to cut out personal and individual effort. I am certain that, if we go on making that easier, when the end of our time comes and one day, perhaps, the Opposition may be in authority, nationalisation will be made an absolute certainty, and we know exactly what nationalisation means.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I congratulate Buckingham on having found a modern Hampden. I do not think it could have found a more suitable representative, or one nearer to the old-fashioned type. We are fighting, as far as Buckingham is concerned, a very big principle. There are all these small concerns, and those hon. Members who have been here for some time this evening know that they will not necessarily get even fair compensation. What is being done in this Sub-section is simply to enable this typically Socialist octopus in the City of London to reach out to Buckingham. I want to kill the octopus at the earliest possible moment, and that is why I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. M. Beaumont) in hoping that on this occasion the Government will give way, because they must realise that it is impossible to allow
what may be bad, and is bad, for London, to stretch throughout the country in this way. Here we have a small, isolated county which has enormous support on this Amendment, simply because of the injustice of this particular Clause of the Bill, which, although it is bad, is no worse than a great many other parts of the Bill, if hon. Members knew it.

10.35 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have listened to hon. Members who have spoken with great interest and with considerable sympathy. I know how annoying it must be for them to have to pass what they describe as a Socialist Measure. But it is not a Socialist Measure, and the speeches that have been made have, I think, rather exaggerated the changes that are being effected by the Bill, more especially on the question of these dotted roads on the map. The only reason for these roads being utilised is for the advantage of the public. There is no power for the board to run omnibuses on these roads except exactly under the same conditions as their competitors. They have to get the licence of the traffic commissioners.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: Does not the Bill give power to the board to operate the road at South Maidenhead without reference to the traffic commissioners?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No. On that road and on all roads outside the special area the board have to get the same permission as others. That being the case, I do not see how people are going to have their conditions in any way worsened, because the board will have to satisfy the traffic commissioners that the competition that it is introducing, if it is introducing competition, in a country district is legitimate and called for in the public interest. That seems to me to be the real point at issue. If I thought the board was going to damage private owners in the way that certain hon. Members have suggested, I should not be in favour of the Bill. I look upon it merely as an extension of an existing principle, and these changes that have been brought about on the borders of the special area are made for the benefit of the public as a whole. I cannot for a moment suggest that the Government can give way on these points.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: This is a very important matter, and we want to get it quite clear. Do we understand that the board will be in the same position as any other operator and that it must apply for a renewal of its licence every year to the traffic commissioners?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Yes.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: In the event of an appeal from the traffic commissioners, I understand it will go to the Minister of Transport. The Minister's relations with the board will at least be intimate and, accordingly, you are going to have an appeal from an aggrieved operator who is refused a licence to someone who is, in fact, not impartial, because of his intimate connection with the board. At one time I sat for Reading, and I know that certain operators in that part of the world may be very seriously aggrieved unless this and subsequent Amendments are accepted.

10.69 p.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: The Parliamentary Secretary has really only answered one of the cases put up to him. I do not agree with him with regard to the dotted lines because I am inclined to think the board will go to the traffic commissioners with their case, if not prejudged, heavily weighted in their favour. Be that as it may, he has still said nothing about that, which to my mind, is a very serious point—the extension of the London traffic area into the rural districts. I am very anxious not to divide against the Government on the matter if it can possibly be avoided, but I ask for some consideration on what is really a very important point.

10.41 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn my attention to that point. The actual extension by this Bill is very slight, and is due entirely to the fact that we want to link up the services in town and country. I would point out to my hon. Friend, and also to the Committee as a whole, that obviously London has extended considerably, and is always extending, and that is one of the reasons why you will find that London, though not going as far as Barnard Castle, has undoubtedly made a little inroad into Buckinghamshire. But I admit that what we are doing and the suggestions in the Bill on this matter are
not only for the benefit of the population of Buckingham but for those who use the road from London to Buckingham.

Earl WINTERTON: Why this arbitrary extension to eight miles? The hon. and gallant Member says he intends to link up town and country, but that is not an answer to the question of my hon. Friend. Why this arbitrary extension of eight miles? What is the reason for it? Why not an extension in every direction? For instance, London traffic stretches to Brighton. What is the reason?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The Bill, as no doubt the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) realises, allows us to go within a radius of 10 miles outside the London passenger transport area, and five miles into Kent. The eight miles to which he is alluding—the road which runs parallel in Buckinghamshire —were arranged to suit the convenience of other services to be taken over.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. BRACKEN: The Minister said that the Bill is to serve the county of Buckinghamshire. I was under the impression that the Bill was to deal with the very complicated question of London traffic. I have considerable sympathy with the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), because when the Minister said the. Bill did not justify him in extending the London Transport Bill to Barnard Castle he forgot that, if passed in its present form, hon. Members on the Opposition Benches will make it apply to Barnard Castle and to other parts of the country. I have never heard a more preposterous reply than that given by the hon. and gallant Member. If you want the case For nationalising the railways, you have had it from the Front Bench of the National Government.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question of nationalising the railways does not arise on the Amendment.

Mr. BRACKEN: It may not arise on the Amendment, but I was pointing out the tendency which would occur if the Minister carried out his ambition that the Transport Bill might apply to Barnard Castle. I hope that the Conservatives will support the Amendment and make themselves felt. While I feel
that the Bill, with all its defects, is the only alternative offered to us, for the moment I think that it is our duty to purify it as much as possible. I am strengthened in my attitude by what was said about the Bill only two years ago from the Front Bench opposite. I hope that Tory Member on this occasion will rally round the hon. Member for Aylesbury and will not allow the passage of this iniquitous and altogether Socialistic part of the Bill.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. LINDSAY: We cannot allow the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to go by without comment. How can the back benches be expected to understand the Bill when Ministers in charge of it are not clear about it? The hon. and gallant Member has not been in his present post very long. He talks about running 10 miles outside London, and five miles into Kent—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now dealing with the next Sub-section.

Mr. LINDSAY: With respect, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to running 10 miles outside the London passenger transport area and five miles outside in regard to the county of Kent. That is not a reply to the point before the Committee, because it refers only to contract carriages and not to public service vehicles, with which the Amendment deals.

10.46 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: I have listened to this Debate from the beginning. The only thing which has been said on behalf of the Government is that they think that the arrangements that are being made are for the benefit of the county of Buckingham, but hon. Members representing that county say that it is not for the benefit of the county. Therefore, the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary is not satisfactory. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the extra eight miles merely meant taking over an arrangement with one concern which was to be linked up in the Combine. Cannot he state which of the concerns is referred to and why these particular eight miles are taken over? The Bill is very complicated and the Committee is entitled to be fully informed. There is no exam-
ination of the Bill upstairs and information must be extracted and given on the Floor of the House. I trust that the Government will give us a little more information why they wish to extend into the county of Buckingham.

10.48 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In consideration of the long experience of my right hon. and gallant Friend I willingly respond to his request and I will also reply to other hon. Members. We are dealing with an Amendment in which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) moved to except the roads in Buckingham, but the discussion has been allowed, for our general convenience, to cover a number of other Amendments and the area of the discussion has, like the London traffic area, extended considerably. I am not quite sure what is the particular point before the Committee except the general point as to why the area covered by the Bill is as large as it is. I think that summarises the objection to this part of the Bill. Obviously, we cannot deal with the discussion simply upon the question as to whether the roads in Buckingham shall be in the area, otherwise the next question will be why are the roads in Berkshire, or the roads in Essex, or the roads in Kent included. Therefore, the hon. Member for Aylesbury will not think me guilty of any discourtesy if I do not address myself to Buckingham in particular but to the general question. The fact is that in 1924 the London traffic area was created. My Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has a prejudice about the London traffic area. He says that he objected to its constitution. I dare say he did. I do not remember whether I did or not, but I dare say I did. But I am afraid that we cannot go back upon Acts of Parliament simply because they were passed when one party was in power. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh ! "] I thought that was a good Conservative doctrine. In 1924 the London traffic area was created and it was of considerable width. It included a great deal more than what one would call London.

Earl WINTERTON: Hear, hear !

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am glad to have that confirmation from the
Noble Lord. In the Schedule to that Act there were delightful rural names which seemed to indicate anything but London. When the Bill was started it was intended to take the London traffic area. I do not speak with authority on this point, because I was not in the Government which devised the Bill originally, nor was I a Member of the House. I share the same disability with my hon. Friend opposite, that I did not hear the Bill discussed on Second Reading, because I was not in the House. When the London traffic area was mapped out, it was found to cut across certain lines of services which it was desired to maintain, and the area was slightly altered from the London traffic area to the London Passenger transport area to meet, not the desires of grasping Ministers, but the convenience of the services that were running to the different localities. The result was that you had a slightly different area, sometimes inside and sometimes outside the London traffic area, but not coterminous with it and not extended by any artificial five or 10 miles in all directions. It was altered solely for the convenience of the lines operating and to meet the objections of the same little private omnibus undertakings of which hon. Members have been such eloquent champions this evening. That was how the London traffic area came to be altered in shape and size.
Then there was still a question which arose in respect of many of these services, for not even the extension of the London passenger transport area quite met the case of all services. There were one or two little arms stretching out five, eight or 10 miles, as the case might be, and these little extensions were added to the area so as to allow existing services to be maintained. The area was not included by drawing lines all round it, but, as the map shows, there were these arms stretching out in different directions outside this area. Outside the special area, which is only another way of describing that which is common to the two areas, the London traffic area and the London passenger transport area, it would be necessary for the board to get precisely the same approval by way of road service licence as any private undertaker.

10.53 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: May I ask a question? When the Attorney-General talks of these extensions being necessitated by changed circumstances, was there any consultation with the local authorities?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will ascertain whether there was any consultation. I did not say it was necessitated by altered circumstances. What I did say was that it was desirable to meet the wishes of the local services that were operating largely inside the London traffic area, but to some extent outside. Frankly, I do not know whether there was consultation with the local authorities, though I should imagine it would be very difficult for them not to have been aware of what was going on in regard to these local services, to meet whose convenience the area was extended.

10.54 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: Though it is not within my knowledge exactly who was consulted, I can tell the Committee that this question of the area came up quite early in the 30 days on which the Committee sat, was postponed for some weeks for consultation with everybody concerned before the area was finally agreed and every opportunity was given for consultations and for facts to be placed before the Committee.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the information, seeing that he sat on the Select Committee for the long period which he has mentioned. The broad point I wanted to make out was, that rather large as this area seems at first sight it is in substance not very much larger than the London traffic area which, for good or ill, was adopted by Parliament in 1924. In so far as an extension has taken place, it has been for the convenience of the services which were operating. If it so happens that some parts of Buckinghamshire are included—I do not know whether some of them arc included in the London traffic area—it is through no malice or original sin on the part of the Government but to meet the convenience of services which were already operating. Any area which would cut across these routes would have resulted in confusion, injustice and hardship to different undertakings, part of
whose limbs would be taken and some parts left. After the intervention of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Pete), it is hardly necessary for me to say that local authorities must have been aware of what was going on.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: As far as the Buckinghamshire County Council are concerned, they had no notice whatever.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am not going to challenge the statement that they had no notice, but I can hardly conceive that as the London Passenger Traffic Bill was before a Committee for a period of three months—it began in April and ended on 27th July—these great local authorities were living in a blissful state of ignorance that it was intended to extend the area to any part of their jurisdiction, and no objection was taken by a single local authority as to the areas proposed in the Bill. I know that hon. Members are sincerely concerned to secure the comfort, peace and prosperity of their different districts, but really the Government could have done no other than they have in fixing the areas in the Bill, and whatever natural indignation hon. Members may have at the flight of time and the happy days when everybody lived as they liked, I hope they will not resist the Government proposal further.

10.57 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: The Committee is indebted to the Attorney-General and the Parliamentary Secretary for throwing considerable light on the controversy that has arisen. We are in this difficulty. If this central organisation is set up under the Bill it is obvious that there will be cases where extended routes outside the particular area of the undertaking will be necessary. As I understand, the power which we are now debating is merely an enabling power, to allow the board to apply for a licence to run these additional outside routes. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) has pointed out that in a particular case an operator was refused a licence by the Traffic Commissioner, and the Minister upheld is refusal. It is now feared that the board by absorbing that operator will be able to revise a service which the Traffic Commissioners and the Minister have decided should not be continued. That is the first point; and it might be met by putting in a proviso on Report to the effect that
nothing in the Bill shall authorise the restoration of a service which has been disallowed by the Traffic Commissioners or the Minister since 1st January, 1931, which is the date when the Road Traffic Act came into force. Such a proviso would make it clear that this enabling power does not, in fact, authorise the restoration of a service already suspended under the Road Traffic Act.
The other point is this. Some hon. Members are apprehensive that an existing private operator may be prejudiced by the restoration of a service through the machinery of the board; and this point may be met by a second proviso to the effect that nothing in the Bill shall prejudice the right of an operator who has been licensed under the Road Traffic Act to apply for a continuance of his licence to operate a service through the area now being handed over to the board. I suggest that those are two perfectly reasonable propositions. Does the power of the board to absorb an undertaking which has lately been refused permission to continue a service in or outside the area necessarily authorise the restoration of that service? I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that it does not; it merely enables the board to apply for a licence to run a service. Obviously, it should not be implied by the passing of this Bill that in fact Parliament has given some sort of authority to the board to re-open some service which the Minister has already decided should not be run.
Particularly the second point is of importance, that where an existing private operator is in fact running into the London area from an outside rural district to-day—it is undoubtedly something deprecated by the Salter Report, to which no reference has been made in this Debate—if such services are to continue in common fairness they should not be prejudiced by the passage of this Bill; if they are bona-fide rural services coming into the central zone they should not be prejudiced in their renewed application for a licence, by anything that is in this Bill. I suggest that two provisos of that kind might very reasonably meet the difficulties which have arisen. I do not offer the suggestion with any desire to facilitate this Bill, which is a bad Bill, and bad particularly because the
area is too wide. If the Government would address themselves to a restriction of the area and a revision of the powers constituting the board, we might get a Measure which would receive more general support.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. GLOSSOP: The Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to a question as to the reason for extending the area, said that it was necessary to co-ordinate the traffic. As one who wishes to support the Government on this Clause, if possible, I would ask for a rather more complete answer than the one which he gave. I can see that the Bill is going to be the forerunner of a great many other Bills for densely populated areas. While I agree that it is essential that traffic should be co-ordinated, I hold that that traffic should be co-ordinated from its centre, and one has to consider which is the particular centre from which one must co-ordinate. The natural commercial centre, the natural market centre, may not be London, but may be some town in Buckinghamshire. It is around that particular town that the traffic should be co-ordinated, instead of trying to draw the traffic of the rural areas of Buckinghamshire into the Metropolis. If there is any argument for co-ordination we have already got it in the railways; there is plenty of scope for traffic on the railways. By putting forward the plea that you must co-ordinate the traffic where it is drawing the people from the natural centre, from miles and miles away, one is doing a great deal to sap the very lifeblood of the shopkeepers and the industries in a great many of the rural towns, which are dependent on the purchasing power of the people in those rural areas.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: The Attorney-General said he did not quite know what we were discussing. We are discussing a principle and that principle is that we should confine the operation of the Bill to the London district. We feel that if we do not assert that principle on behalf of the country districts, a precedent may be established which will be used in the future. The London area may be extended further and further, and the ultimate goal will be the nationalisation of the transport of the country. -Unless we can get more satisfactory assurances than
those which we have received, while it is very distasteful for us to oppose the Government, we shall feel bound to divide the Committee on this Amendment.

11.6 p.m.

Sir GEORGE GILLETT: Having had some months of close association with the Ministry of Transport, I should like to point out that some hon. Members do not appear to have realised the tremendous revolution which is taking place in the motor industry. One of my duties when I was Parliamentary Secretary was to deal with the appeals made by private concerns against decisions which had been made contrary to their desires and which were referred to the Ministry. I think hon. Members have not realized that two kinds of motor transport are provided by the omnibus companies—by private as well as public concerns. One of the questions involved in those appeals was as to how you were to adjust the long-distance motor traffic so that it did not clash with local concerns which were serving various localities. The Amendment doubtless has been moved by the hon. Member with the best intentions for his own district, but the only result of it would be that instead of the long-distance motor omnibuses taking his constituents right into London, as some of them require, at a certain point the line would be cut, and those wishing to travel into London would have to go by two omnibuses instead of getting a

through omnibus. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That is one of the problems in connection with long-distance motor traffic. You have some motor omnibuses going a long way, and at the same time it is necessary to make arrangements for short-distance traffic within certain definite areas.

In regard to the tramway systems, for instance, in some localities, we had to make conditions that the taking up of passengers by long-distance vehicles should be limited, so as not to affect the short-distance services. If you are going to interfere with the long-distance services, you deprive London people of the advantage of getting quickly out to the country districts, and, on the other hand, you deprive the people in those country districts of the advantage of a through omnibus service to London. Any idea that you are going to have smaller areas is misleading. It is inevitable that you will have motor omnibuses covering long distances, while on the other hand you will have local companies or municipal services covering the shorter distances. What the Government suggest is in keeping with that idea. I make that submission as a result of my experience when I was at the Ministry of Transport and when these matters came before me.

Question put., "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 244.

Division No. 16.]
AYES.
[11.10 p.m.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Liddall, Walter S.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Bracken, Brendan
Lymington, Viscount
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Maitland, Adam
Tate, Mavis Constance


Butt, Sir Alfred
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Mitcheson, G. G.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Nail, Sir Joseph
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dawson, Sir Philip
Ray, Sir William
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Remer, John R.
Wise, Alfred R.


Graves, Marjorie
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wragg, Herbert


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart



Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Selley, Harry R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Dr. Howitt and Mr. A. Somerville.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Briant, Frank


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bernays, Robert
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)


Albery, Irving James
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Blindell, James
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Borodale, Viscount
Burnett, John George


Banfield, John William
Bossom, A. C.
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)


Bateman, A. L.
Boulton, W. W.
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)


Batey, Joseph
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Carver, Major William H.
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Parkinson, John Allen


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Patrick, Colin M.


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pearson, William G.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Penny, Sir George


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hornby, Frank
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Horobin, Ian M.
Potter, John


Conant, R. J. E.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cook, Thomas A,
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Copeland, Ida
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Pybus, Percy John


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Cove, William G.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Iveagh, Countess of
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Crooke, J. Smedley
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsden, E.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rankin, Robert


Crossley, A. C.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rea, Walter Russell


Daggar, George
John, William
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Drewe, Cedric
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Ker, J. Campbell
Robinson, John Roland


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Duggan, Hubert John
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rosbotham, S. T.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Eales, John Frederick
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Salmon, Major Isidore


Eastwood, John Francis
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Salt, Edward W.


Eden, Robert Anthony
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Leckie, J. A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Edwards, Charles
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Elmley, Viscount
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lewis, Oswald
Scone, Lord


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Llewellin, Major John J.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Slater, John


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lunn, William
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Fermoy, Lord
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Stones, James


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Storey, Samuel


Fox, Sir Gifford
McKie, John Hamilton
Strauss, Edward A.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Fremantle, Sir Francis
McLean, Major Alan
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Glossop, C. W. H.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Thompson, Luke


Goff, Sir Park
Magnay, Thomas
Thomson. Sir Frederick Charles


Goldie, Noel B.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Greene, William P. C.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Greenwood. Rt. Hon. Arthur
Martin, Thomas B.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W.)
Merriman. Sir F. Boyd
Williams. Edward John (Ogmore)


Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James
Womersley, Walter James


Grundy, Thomas W.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Hall. George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)



Hammersley, Samuel, S.
Morrison, William Shepherd
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward And Commander Southby.


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Nathan, Major H. L.



Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.



Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I beg to move, in page 23, line 32, after the word "mile," to insert the words:
or in the county of Berkshire one mile.
11.18 p.m.
This Amendment is rendered necessary because we want to bring Windsor in the purview of the Bill. It is situated immediately outside the boundary of the London
passenger transport area. The sole purpose of the Amendment is to enable the board to operate omnibus services to and from Windsor which are at present being operated by the London General Omnibus Company. They will be taken over by the board. The terminal point in Windsor for these services is more than half a mile outside the boundary of the London traffic area.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: This Amendment is a complete justification of the action taken in dividing the Committee just now. We said Clause 15 would be taken as a precedent for a further and further extension of the London area, and here is proof of it. I agree, however, that it is impossible to resist the voting power of the Government, backed as it is by the Socialists, and, I may add, by the votes of a good many Conservatives who ought to be ashamed of themselves.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The Parliamentary Secretary said he wanted Windsor included but he never told us why he wanted Windsor, except that some odd omnibus service is running there at the present time. What was said by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A Somerville) just now is a perfect illustration of the kind of grab that is going on. Here is an entirely new Amendment, put in at the last moment by the Government. It has nothing to do with the Committee upstairs. We cannot blame them now, and we cannot blame the incompetence of the present Minister of Transport—he did not want it—yet now the Ministry comes along with its accelerating desire for Socialism, to bring Windsor into this Bill. It is monstrous that the Government should put us in this difficulty. Nearly all the Government's Amendments to-day have made the Bill a little worse. That is not the use of the Committee stage of the House, and there is every justification for the attitude we are taking up. The Government ought never to have tried to force this unwelcome Bill on the House. Apparently the only people who are cheering the Government in their efforts this evening are the Socialists on the Opposition Front Bench.

Amendment agreed to.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. LINDSAY: I beg to move, in page 23, line 34, at the beginning, to insert the words:
a public service vehicle operated by the.
This Amendment will make no alteration in the force of the Bill, but it will make sense that which was not sense before. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: We cannot accept the Amendment which would only make a slight alteration in the drafting of the Bill. I appreciate the hon. Member's intention in putting it down.

Mr. LINDSAY: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman direct his attention to Proviso (1) to Sub-section (1), which begins with the words:
a service provided by the board.
Proviso (ii) begins with the words:
The board shall not.
What distinction is there between the two Provisos?

11.27 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not like to spend any time on what is a mere drafting Amendment. The two Provisos deal with different matters; the first one says that a service shall extend to a certain point. The second says that the board shall not both pick up and set down. Therefore, they need two different subjects.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. MAITLAND: I beg to move, in page 23, line 37, at the end, to insert the words: and
(iii) notwithstanding anything contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act or shown upon the signed map mentioned in Part I of that Schedule the boundary of the London Passenger Transport Area in the neighbourhood of Sevenoaks shall be a line drawn on the western side of the Dartford, Otford, Sevenoaks, and Tonbridgo Road commencing at the junction of that road with the Seal and River- head Road passing through Sevenoaks and terminating at the bottom of River Hill where the boundary of the London Traffic Area crosses the,Sevehoaks and Tonbridge Road, and notwithstanding anything contained in Parts II and III of that Schedule the road from Sevenoaks to Tunbridge Wells shall not be available for use by the public service vehicles of the board under the powers of this Subsection farther south from Sevenoaks than the bottom of River Hill.
I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) to submit this Amendment. In view of what happened to the Buckinghamshire and Windsor Amendments, I have very little doubt as to what will be the fate of this Amendment. The purpose of it is to ask for a revision of the map, with regard to Sevenoaks. I understand that the boundary line that has
been drawn is the boundary line of local government, but that is not necessarily the best that can be found for road transport purposes. Very little regard is paid to the question of convenience. The Amendment suggests that there should. be a slight alteration which would make the town of Sevenoaks the natural point from which the traffic would operate. So far as the public are concerned, there are already quite adequate facilities from the town of Sevenoaks. The people of Tonbridge, who are particularly affected by this Amendment, are anxious that existing services should be maintained. The purpose of the Amendment is to restrict the operations of the board to a natural point, which is deemed to be more convenient, at Sevenoaks, rather than two miles further on, between Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells.

11.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The object of this Amendment is to prevent the board from utilising one of those routes which were alluded to in the discussion on a previous Amendment. My hon. Friend has put the case very clearly, but we cannot accept the Amendment, because the effect would be to stop an existing service, beginning in London, at an inconvenient point midway between Sevenoaks and Tonbridge. It would, moreover, involve a change in the map which was drawn up after considerable discussion and after the case had been heard by the Joint Select Committee. In these circumstances, and in view of what has been pointed out already in regard to these routes, we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. MAITLAND: I am sorry that the clarity with which I put the case prevents the Government from accepting the Amendment. In view of what has happened in the case of the previous Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 23, line 39, to leave out from the word "carriage" to the end of the Sub-section.
Sub-section (2) of Clause 15 reads as follows:
It shall he lawful for the board to run any public service vehicle as a contract
carriage on any road within the London Passenger Transport Area and on any road outside that area within a radius of 10 miles, or in the county of Kent five miles, from any point on the boundary of that area but not otherwise.
This is the first reference in the Clause to the particular kind of vehicle which is called a "contract carriage," and we want to make an exception in the conditions governing the running of contract carriages and the other vehicles referred to in Sub-section (1) of the Clause. Perhaps, for the convenience of the Committee, I may explain what a contract carriage is. As I understand it, it is a carriage that is let for the full journey, the passengers entering the vehicle at the commencement of the journey and remaining in it as passengers until the journey is completed, and coming back in the same carriage from the destination on the outward journey to the starting point. The Parliamentary Secretary, in resisting the last Amendment, suggested that it would be unreasonable to expect people who had booked for the full journey to, say, Sevenoaks, to transfer themselves from the omnibus in which they started their journey to another conveyance in order to complete the journey, but that is what will happen unless contract carriages are excepted. Frequently people travel in a body in these carriages for the purpose of seaside excursions, Sunday school treats and so forth, using an omnibus, or a number of omnibuses, under a contract made with the omnibus company, and travelling all together to their destination without the party being broken up or having to change conveyances on the way.
In the Clause there is a limit of 10 miles outside the boundary in any other county than Kent, where it is five miles. Contract parties sometimes wish to go considerably beyond the distance of 10 miles. There are seaside resorts 40 and 50 miles beyond that boundary, to which parties frequently go in this way. There are pleasant picnic resorts in Buckinghamshire. We do not wish existing facilities to be withdrawn. Football and cricket clubs and Sunday school treats frequently go 40 or 50 miles. They would find it extremely inconvenient to have to change at the boundary of the London transport area and take some other conveyance to complete the journey. This is an indispensable Amendment and it can
be accepted without prejudicing the value of the Bill. The London General Omnibus Company caters very largely for the kind of clubs and touring parties that we wish to protect.
We are not asking for permission to change conditions. We are simply asking that what is being done to-day shall be permitted. We are not asking that these omnibuses should be allowed to ply for hire outside the transport area boundaries but only that an omnibus loaded at the starting point shall be allowed to continue for the whole length of the journey. A party of boy scouts or girl guides can go to Margate or Folkestone at present without changing. That could be continued without interfering with the licensing conditions or impairing the efficiency of the Bill and it would be a very great hardship to pass the Bill with such conditions as are contained in Sub-section (3). If the Minister can give us an assurance that he will make provision somewhere in the Bill for the preservation of these facilities, we shall be pleased to listen to him and to work with him in seeing that it, is given effect to.

11.39 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I intervene to prevent the Committee being misled, I am sure inadvertently, by the hon. Member. There was never any question in the Committee that considered the Bill of preventing football clubs and the like traveling to their destination without breaking their journey. The point is whether catering for long-distance travelling by contract parties is a part of London passenger transport. The Committee decided that it was not part of London passenger transport and that the conveyance of these parties for long distances outside the area, to seaside resorts and to other distant places mentioned by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), was not the business of London passenger transport. It was pointed out, on the other side, that in order to carry on London passenger transport there must be spare vehicles, and that it would make the whole of the business of London passenger transport more expensive if there was no outlet for the use of spare vehicles on certain days. It was decided by the Committee, as a matter of compromise, that it was reasonable that London passenger transport vehicles should carry
passengers for a distance of 10 miles outside their own area and no further. Therefore, I beg of the learned Attorney-General, or whoever is to reply, not to respond to the hon. Member and give a. concession on this point. It was thoroughly thrashed out, and the arrangement embodied in Sub-section (1) is a fair one.

11.41 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: After the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), I do not think that there is anything I need add, because they really embody all that I was going to say. I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) appreciates the fact that there is nothing to prevent Girl Guides, Boy Scouts, or whoever they may be, from getting a contract carriage to carry them through, comfortably, without any break of journey, to their ultimate destination.

11.42 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The answer is really not satisfactory to us. This is a large business which has been carried on by the London General Omnibus Company up to the present time. The value of that business has been purchased, or will be purchased under the Bill, by the Transport Board. Now, apparently, it is proposed to hand over the whole of the business which has been purchased by the Transport Board to somebody else, i.e., to private directors, and to stop the Transport Board from doing in the future that which the London General Omnibus Company have done in the past, and which is part of the goodwill of the London General Omnibus Company for which the Transport Board have paid. Moreover, there is no guarantee whatever that there will be any provision of direct carriages by other people to satisfy the demand. An hon. Member opposite laughs. It does not always pay simply to hold a large number of carriages in preparation for special occasions upon which large numbers may be required, and that service was performed by a big organisation like the London General Omnibus Company.

Captain STRICKLAND: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman ever experienced any difficulty whatever in getting a contract?

Sir S. CRIPPS: The London General Omnibus Company have been in the market with an enormous number of vehicles and have been able to cover a very large part of the demand. Other people have covered part of the demand, it is true, but they have covered a large part of it.

Captain STRICKLAND: The vehicles to be thrown out of employment by this Bill will be available for that traffic.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Now the hon. and gallant Member is suggesting, apparently, that the Transport Board is to be forced to sell vehicles which it has been forced to purchase, because the Bill is to take away from it the uses to which those vehicles have been put.

Sir B. PETO: That really is not the point. There is a distance of 10 miles outside the 25 miles radius—and that is a very considerable distance—which will still be supplied by all this mass of vehicles brought inside the London transport area. It is merely a question of the long-distance transport, which was felt to be more appropriate to people who own the coaches for this long-distance transport and have surplus vehicles capable of carrying it.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not understand the argument of the hon. Baronet. Up to the present time the London General Omnibus Company have been able to run their omnibuses anywhere without limit. The Transport Board are purchasing the whole of that business from the London General Omnibus Company, and paying for it.

Sir B. PETO: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman consider it a reasonable proposition that the vehicles of the London Transport Board should operate with contract vehicles carrying parties down to Ilfracombe?

Sir S. CRIPPS: Certainly. If in free competition with a hirer the London Transport Board got the contract, I do not see why they should not do it. But that is not likely, because their omnibuses would not be suitable for going over the roads that long distance.

Sir B. PETO: The Green Line.

Sir S. CRIPPS: You may take any district which has been served by omnibuses of that type, and the facilities
which have been afforded by the London General Omnibus Company in the past may not be afforded in the future, because they will be no longer in the market for affording the facilities. The Transport Board will have had to pay for the goodwill of omnibuses which have run but which are going to be prevented from running. For these reasons we think the Amendment ought to be carried.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. SOMERVELL: I think the Government must now see the danger they run. If they make a concession the Labour party immediately take advantage of it and want to carry this unified and nationalised transport all over the country. I was interested to hear the hon. and learned Member saying that there would be no vehicles left for these services because the Government were crushing out the small independent companies, and there would be none in existence.

Sir S. CRIPPS: That was not my argument.

Mr. SOMERVELL: That is what I understood, that if you form this unified system of transport and buy out all the independent companies there will be no company to run these services and it is possible that there may he no omnibuses or charabancs to take these long journeys.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 24, line 3, after the word "seventy-six," insert the words "both inclusive."

In line 7, leave out the word "section," and insert instead thereof the word "Act."

In line 22, at the end, add the words:

(5) The board shall, in respect of road services provided by them, perform such services in regard to the conveyance of mails as are prescribed by the Conveyance of Mails Act, 1893, in respect of a tramway to which that Act applies.—[The Attorney-General.]

CLAUSE 16.—Restriction on carriage of road passengers on certain journeys in London Traffic Area.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 24, line 26, to leave out
the words "any passenger," and to insert instead thereof the words:
within the special area any passengers.
11.50 p.m.
This and succeeding Amendments to this Clause are purely drafting Amendments, some of them consequential and others mere alteration of words to make the meaning a little more explicit. If the Committee will accept that from me, perhaps we can take them all without discussion.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 24, line 27, leave out from the second word "carriage," to the word "other," in line 31.

In line 35, leave out the words "the special area," and insert instead thereof the words
that area, or entering the vehicle outside the special area for the purpose of being set down outside that area.

In line 39, after the word "convenient," insert the word "terminal."

In line 41, after the word "any," insert the words "portion of a."

In page 25, line 16, leave out the word "these," and insert instead thereof the word "those."—[The Attorney-General.]

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 23, line 20, after the word "urea," to insert the words:
or to the carriage from a terminal point within the special area of passengers who have transferred at the terminal point from another vehicle forming part of a service of express carriages proceeding to the terminal point from a place outside the special area.
This is really a drafting Amendment, but, as it looks a little more substantial, I want the Committee to know what we are doing. This is to provide for a feeder service at the end of the return journey, and to allow a service to be connected up for the passenger at the end of his journey as well as on the outgoing journey already provided for in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 25, line 23, after the word "to," insert the words "or from."

In line 26, to leave out the words "or operated under a hiring agreement or hire-purchase agreement," and to insert instead thereof the words "and operated."

In line 31, after the word "to," insert the words "or from."

In line 32, at the end, insert the words:
and for the purposes of this condition a vehicle shall he deemed to be owned by the person providing the service if, being the subject of a hiring agreement or hire-purchase agreement, it is in the possession of that person under that agreement.

In line 43, leave out the word "thirty-two," and insert instead thereof the word "thirty-three."

In page 26, line 26, after the word "application," insert the words:
or from the date on which the Board is to be deemed to have refused his application.

In line 39, leave out the words "pecuniary loss," and insert instead thereof the word "damage."

In page 27, line 1, leave out the words "forming part of," and insert instead thereof the words "while running on."

In line 4, leave out the words "those vehicles," and insert instead thereof the words "vehicles while so running."

In line 23, leave out the words "pecuniary loss," and insert instead thereof the word "damage."

In line 27, lease out the word "thirty-two," and insert instead thereof the word "thirty-three."—[The Attorney General.]

CLAUSE 17.—(Provisions relating to provincial operating companies.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 28, line 17, after the word "carry," to insert the words:
within the London Passenger Transport Area.
There are a number of Amendments to this Clause, all of which are drafting. I hope that the Committee will accept these and allow us to have Clauses 18, 19, 20 and 21, to which there are no Amendments, and after that I suggest that we report Progress.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 28, line 18, after the word "by," insert the words "or on behalf of."

In line 19, after the word "by," insert the words "or on behalf of."

In line 20, after the word "goodwill," insert the words "or any part thereof."

In line 21, leave out from the second word "carriage" to the word "other" in line 23.

In line 26, at the end, insert the words:
or entering the vehicle outside that area for the purpose of being set down outside that area.

In line 30, after the word "convenient," insert the word "terminal."

In line 33, after the word "any," insert the words "portion of a."

In page 29, line 11, after the word "service," insert the words "of express carriages."

In line 13, after the word area," insert the words:
or to the carriage for a terminal point within that area of passengers who have transferred at the terminal point for another vehicle forming part of a service of express carriages proceeding to the terminal point for a place outside that area.

In line 16, after the word "to," insert the words "or from."

In line 19, leave out from the word "owned" to the word "by," in line 21, and insert instead thereof the words "and operated."

In line 24, after the word "to," insert the words "or from."

In line 25, at the end, insert the words:
and for the purposes of this condition a vehicle shall be deemed to be owned by the person providing the service, if, being the subject of a hiring agreement or hire-purchase agreement, it is in the possession of that person under that agreement.

In line 29, at the end, insert the words:
(3) if any person carries any person as a passenger in contravention of this section, or permits any person to be so carried, he shall be guilty of an offence under the Road Traffic Act, 1930.

In line 41, leave out the word "thirty-two" and insert instead thereof the word "thirty-three."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clauses 18 (Working agreements), 19 (Provision for exercise by board of powers and duties of London County Council with respect to Thames passenger vessel service); and 20 (Power of board to lease or sell surplus lands), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Three Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.